Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1985
2. Mineral Workings Act 1985
3. Cinemas Act 1985
4. Shipbuilding Act 1985
5. Surrey Act 1985
6. Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) Act 1985

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the 10 largest manufacturers of aerospace equipment in the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The largest manufacturers of aerospace equipment in the United Kingdom include: British Aerospace, the Dowty group, Ferranti, GEC, Lucas Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Shorts, Smith Industries, Thorn EMI and Westland.

Mr. Forsythe: Will the Minister continue to assist Shorts in exploiting its well-known expertise in the aerospace industry?

Mr. Pattie: Yes.

Mr. Hayward: Is my hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce is now producing the 535 E4 engine for the Boeing 757 which is the only engine to power a large jet which can land at airports which operate a curfew through the night, that it is proof of British excellence, and that airports, such as Heathrow, need not fear its increased use for day and night-time flights?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. He will be aware that the Government have given considerable support to Rolls-Royce in recent years. Most recently they have given £70 million of launch aid for the RB 211 535 and £60 million for the V2500 which was announced some months ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will no doubt accept that Westland Aircraft is a vital component of the British Aerospace industry. Does he agree that it is important that that company should be able to go into the European collaborative projects of the early 1990s in as strong a position as possible and that therefore some of the delays that we are now experiencing over the AST 404 decision are unhelpful to the company?

Mr. Pattie: As the hon. Gentleman would have heard if he had been present for defence questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement gave reasons for the possible delays in the AST 404. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I note the hon. Gentleman's other point.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister accept as one of his most important tasks the need to give positive direct and indirect help to preserve jobs in advanced technology in aviation and at the same time to preserve that technology? Will he give full support at all times to civil and defence projects?

Mr. Pattie: Part of my brief in my right hon. Friend's Department is to take responsibility for advanced technology. Much of the activity of the aerospace industry is in that area. As we have said in the House many times in the past, we see no advantage to the United Kingdom in losing the vital capability to design as well as to manufacture advanced technology products.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that delays in reaching a decision on the European fighter aircraft could seriously prejudice British Aerospace's design and manufacturing capability? Will he do all that he can to ensure that a quick decision is reached on the matter, or give us an assurance that a national programme will be put in hand instead?

Mr. Pattie: As I think my hon. Friend is aware, the Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the Ministry of Defence on this development. I would not agree that there have been significant delays. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the date of the next ministerial meeting to consider the matter has slipped by about six weeks from the date originally envisaged. The Government take the point that no unreasonable delay must be allowed.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister cannot shrug off his responsibilities as a representative of the sponsoring Ministry for Westland. Notwithstanding whatever was said yesterday, will the Minister undertake to use his best offices to ensure that perhaps even a small production order for the W30 helicopter is secured from the Ministry of Defence? The rumours in The Mail on Sunday and other newspapers are having a damaging effect on the export prospects of that company's products.

Mr. Pattie: There is no question of shrugging off responsibilities. I have already told the House that we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence on this and other matters. We are fully aware of the company's loading and future aspirations. We shall continue to work with the Ministry of Defence.

USSR (Balance of Trade)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the balance of trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): In 1984, exports from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union increased by 65 per cent. to £735 million, while imports from the Soviet Union rose by 17 per cent. to £854 million, producing a balance in the Soviet Union's favour of £119 million.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the reduction in the imbalance of trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union compared with previous years, and recognise that many of the imports are processed for re-exporting from this country. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that countries entering into the COCOM agreement to restrict the export of certain technologies and products to Eastern bloc countries abide by that agreement, and that it is not unilaterally broken at the whim of any one country?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. COCOM works by unanimity. I know of no example of a country trying to do what my hon. Friend is protesting about. If he has any evidence that it was being done, we would investigate the complaint as a matter of urgency.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister take a look at the list of items which may not be exported to the Soviet Union? One firm in my constituency, which is engaged in high technology, is prevented from exporting commercial packages and microchips to the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the same products can be bought virtually over the counter in London. There is no doubt that the restrictions are circumvented in that way. Would it not be better to reconsider the list and open up the possibility of trade to all such firms?

Mr. Channon: There must be some restriction on exports to Soviet bloc countries. The list was reviewed last year, and I hope to make an order setting out a new list, which will be laid before the House in the very near future. The list is kept continually under review. If there are any specific points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

Mr. John Browne: If the Soviets are to restore growth to their economy, will they not have to accept some forms of financial incentive and decentralisation, and will they not also require massive imports from the West? Will that not therefore offer great opportunities for British manufacturers, financiers and traders, outside the restrictions on strategically important high technology exports?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is quite right. Exports from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union increased by 65 per cent. last year—an extremely good figure. When Mr. Gorbachev was in London, he said that he hoped that over the next few years there would be an increase of another 40 to 50 per cent. The chances are very good indeed.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister agree that, following the election of Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet

Union, the time is right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Election?"] Mr. Gorbachev was elected by the Praesidium. It would be helpful if Conservative Members paid some regard to the diplomatic niceties, if they wish to advance our trade with the Soviet Union.
Would it not be advisable for the Minister and his colleagues — the matter is probably beyond the imagination of the Secretary of State — to mount a special trade mission to the Soviet Union to follow up what one hopes will be the beneficial results of a thaw in the political climate? Can the Minister say what were the results of the discussions with Mr. Gorbachev on his recent visit?

Mr. Channon: Yes. When I saw Mr. Gorbachev in December we discussed the possibility of drawing up a new programme for a long-term trade agreement between our countries. I look forward to seeing his colleagues, who are coming in June for the United Kingdom-Soviet joint trade commission. I hope that we shall draw up a new trade document then. We shall certainly be prepared to consider further exchanges, either by trade missions or some other way, to increase the already great increase in British exports.

British Tourist Authority

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority; and if he will discuss with him the level of British Tourist Authority funding.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am next meeting Mr. Bluck on 15 April. I expect to discuss a range of issues with him concerning the promotion and development of the United Kingdom tourism industry, which I am very pleased to see has just had a record year and seems set for even further growth in 1985.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of my interest in the tourism industry. Does it remain Government policy to invest in success? Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike the spurious claims of cuts in the National Health Service, there has been a cut in real terms in the budget of the British Tourist Authority overseas? Can he tell me of any other investment by the taxpayer which has been so cost-effective?

Mr. Lamont: Of course we want to encourage tourism. It is a great growth industry and a positive prospect for employment. My hon. Friend is right, there has been a cut in real terms in the budget of the BTA, but it was relieved of some responsibilities in 1983. Furthermore, spending on tourism as a whole—the English Tourist Board, the BTA and section 4 — has broadly kept pace with inflation. We strongly want to encourage tourism.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware of the recent increase in tourism in industrial areas and the efforts of some northern cities to attract foreign tourists to learn some of the history of our industrial areas and to visit local museums? Will he discuss that with the British Tourist Authority and help it to encourage that process?

Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree. Cities such as Bradford have done remarkably well, as has Liverpool—

Mr. Meadowcroft: And Leeds.

Mr. Lamont: And Leeds, the hon. Gentleman prompts me. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the BTA. We want to encourage such domestic tourism.

Mr. Bevan: As to investing in success, when my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BTA, will he discuss an investment which the chairman could make through the ETB in the Birmingham convention centre? Following the success of the national exhibition centre, it will create thousands of jobs and bring prosperity, through business tourism, to the midlands, and especially to Birmingham. I should be obliged if he would take that chance.

Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly discuss that matter. When my hon. Friend talks of investing in success, he should bear in mind that our intention is to support the boards so that they can support British tourism. The overwhelming proportion of the money invested in tourism will and must come from the private sector.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the real contribution that tourism makes to regional economies? Is he further aware that it is important, especially in respect of section 4 grant-aid, to make additional funds available to increase the quality of tourist attractions?

Mr. Lamont: I am aware of the importance of tourism to the regions and areas such as the south-west. When I announced the conclusions of the review of tourism, I said that we intended to maintain the level of section 4 assistance, which we have increased to £8 million. That remains our intention.

Mr. John Townend: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BTA, will he emphasise the need for Yorkshire and Humberside, and especially the seaside resort of Bridlington, to receive treatment equivalent to Wales, which has hitherto had a much greater share of resources than its population warrants?

Mr. Lamont: The comparison should be between not the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board and Wales, but between the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Beggs: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to introduce measures to promote the growth of the United Kingdom aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pattie: I have no plans to add to those measures which already exist to help promote growth in the United Kingdom aerospace industry. The Government have given considerable assistance to the industry in recent years. It is our intention to increase further the international competitiveness of the industry by returning to the private sector as soon as possible those parts of the industry which remain under state control.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that equality of opportunity exists in the Short Bros factory in Belfast? Does he also accept that, as Shorts has made a commitment to use a small site in west Belfast, that site should be used by the company for future apprentice training?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
As to the first part of his question, in awarding the contract for the United States air force aeroplane — known as the Sherpa — to Shorts, the United States Government satisfied themselves that no discrimination was practised by Shorts. The contract was awarded not only on merit, but on the fact that the United States Government were satisfied on that point.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth prospects for the United Kingdom aerospace industry as a whole would be enhanced if the Ministry of Defence were encouraged to make the attrition order for Tornados to keep the lines going throughout the country, and that every encouragement should be given to ensuring that the European fighter aircraft project gets off the ground so that the United Kingdom benefits throughout the length and breadth of the land? Will he use his considerable influence with the Ministry of Defence to put that into effect?

Mr. Pattie: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I am sure he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read this exchange tomorrow.

Honda Car Company

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had any further discussions with the Honda car company concerning its Swindon site; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Norman Lamont: My Department holds discussions with Honda from time to time, as with any other potential investor in the United Kingdom. Such discussions are commercially confidential.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate to hide behind the cloak of business confidentiality, because people want to know what the British content will be if a project is built at Swindon? What will be the effect on the fortunes of British Leyland? As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I should like to know whether Wales was seriously considered for this project. Alternatively, because of recent Government changes in regional policy, is Wales now so much less attractive to potential investors?

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure to what project the hon. Gentleman is referring. Honda has publicly stated that it has no firm plans for an engine-making plant or for full car production in the United Kingdom. It is not just convenient, but it is absolutely necessary to shelter behind the cloak of commercial confidentiality, as anyone will realise when discussing such matters with companies which might invest in this country. The hon. Gentleman has raised the same question as he raised last time. I wish that he would make up his mind whether he is against any project or whether he wants it in his constituency.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the delight in Swindon at Honda's interest in that town, as well as the full-hearted support from all parties for the move that Honda is proposing? Will he give an absolute assurance that in no way will he be tempted by the hints of centralised planning from the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)?

Mr. Lamont: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said, as, I am sure, has Honda.

Mr. Park: Inward investment is bound to be welcome, but is the Minister at all concerned about the loss of design, research and development capacity in industry? I hope he will accept that we do not want a series of screwdriver operations, thereby losing the skills and abilities which are so necessary to our future.

Mr. Lamont: Of course we are concerned about loss of research or design capacity, but in this hypothetical case we are talking not about a loss but about a potential addition. It is Government policy on any inward investment to take account of the effect on domestic industry.

Mr. Roger King: When discussing inward investment, and especially any proposals from Honda to produce vehicles or components in this country, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems identified by the Ford Motor Company—that, in view of the present state of the European market, there is too much production capacity, and that that company is seeking to eliminate some of its own capacity?

Mr. Lamont: If a company wishes to come to this country, using its own money, it is up to that company to judge whether there is overcapacity in this country. People may wish to invest here without any Government support or involvement, but if the question of Government support arises we certainly take account of the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: We do not wish the Minister to betray any commercial confidences, but we would welcome any increase in research and development or production of motor cars in this country. Nevertheless, the terms must be right. Will he confirm that he will not consider any takeover bid by Honda for Austin Rover and that inward investment from abroad will not be regarded as a substitute for a continued heavy research and development and production effort by Austin Rover? Will he also consider further Government assistance to Austin Rover on merit, not on the usual Government prejudice?

Mr. Lamont: Any proposal for inward investment requiring Government assistance must be on the basis that the terms are right. We have regard to the local content, especially as there are conditions relating to the import of Japanese cars into this country. No proposal for a takeover of Austin Rover has been put forward, and I decline to answer such hypothetical questions. We shall, of course, consider carefully the impact on indigenous producers of any proposed investment by any vehicle manufacturer.

Small Businesses (Assistance)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has undertaken of Government assistance to small businesses in other European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Channon: My Department keeps continually in touch with other EC Governments' measures in the small business field.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the imposition of rates as a cost to small businesses is unique in Europe in that it is not related to any ability of the businesses to pay? Will he undertake to make representations on behalf of small businesses to his colleagues who are studying the rating system to try to alleviate that impost?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman implies, that is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Nevertheless, I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is extremely nice to have all-party support for attempts to reduce rates. That has not always been evident in all parts of the House.

Mr. Richard Page: In the past my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have taken note of any EC initiative to help small businesses, such as the loan guarantee scheme and improvements in employment legislation. Will he guarantee that if another good idea comes out of the EC that, too, will be introduced here?

Mr. Channon: Yes, indeed, but we have quite a few good ideas of our own. We are determined to go on removing any burdens which can sensibly be removed from small firms to increase their expansion and numbers.

British Shipbuilders (Southampton)

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the latest progress achieved in the privatisation of British Shipbuilders' interest in Southampton.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I have asked British Shipbuilders to sell all its warship-building interests, including Vosper Thornycroft, by 31 March 1986. I understand that British Shipbuilders hopes to issue a sale document for Vosper Thornycroft by the summer. Vosper Shiprepair is also on the market and British Shipbuilders is in discussion with potential purchasers.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Is he aware that the continuing delays have caused much anxiety among the work force? Will he ensure that British Shipbuilders does not delay any further in implementing these important privatisation measures?

Mr. Tebbit: I know that British Shipbuilders is anxious to get on with the matter. It is not always easy to handle all the sales at once. It is getting on as quickly as it reasonably can, and certainly I shall give it all the help that I can to complete the task.

East Anglia

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new steps he is taking to encourage tourism in East Anglia.

Mr. Lamont: The Government will continue to fund the promotion of all areas of England, including East Anglia, through the English tourist board and to provide an economic climate in which this sector can continue to grow and prosper.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for the reply, and East Anglia is grateful for what the Government have done but will the Minister speak to the English tourist board and do something about its preoccupation with advertisements for Stratford, Oxford, Caernarfon and Edinburgh, and encourage it to broadcast the allure of Foul Anchor, Prickwillow and Pidley Fen?

Mr. Lamont: I know of the hon. Gentleman's personal interest in tourism, as I had to pay, not an extortionate, but a handsomely priced car parking fee when I went to the Walberswick crab fishing festival last year and used his car park.

Mr. Freud: For charity.

Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly draw the attention of the chairman of the tourist board to the hon. Gentleman's point. It is our intention that the regions of England should be able to market themselves strongly through the tourist board's activities. I am in favour of some devolution from the ETB to the regions.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Budget changes in national insurance contributions will stimulate employment in the tourist industry in East Anglia by making it possible for people to accept lower paid jobs in that service industry, and that, therefore East Anglia will be ready to meet the large influx of tourists which my hon. Friend is helping us to achieve?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The changes in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will make a considerable difference to the economics of the hotel and tourism industries.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increases have occurred in input costs for manufacturing industry over the past 12 months; and to what extent these have been offset by improvements in productivity.

Mr. Pattie: Comparing 1984 with 1983, material and fuel costs of manufacturing industry rose by 8 per cent., while wage and salary costs increased by 8·75 per cent. The strong productivity performance, up 4·5 per cent., allowed the increase in unit labour costs and manufacturers output prices to be limited to 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Carlisle: I welcome the increase in productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that as a trading nation we must compete with the performance of other countries, and that the creation of jobs depends on that? Does he further agree that in that respect it is essential that our unit costs rise less than those of other countries? How has our performance been in that respect?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing attention to this problem. Unit labour costs continue to rise too fast compared with those of our competitors. On the latest figures available, unit labour costs in manufacturing fell during the past year by 5 per cent. in Japan, and 2 per cent. in Germany. They remained static in France and rose by 1 per cent. in the United States.

Mr. Ashdown: Is it not the case that total factory production has fallen by 8·7 per cent. since the Government came to power? Will the Minister tell us when he expects the total ex-factory production in the United Kingdom to reach the point that his Government inherited in 1979?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are incorrect. Productivity has increased considerably in the last two quarters. We see no reason why it should not continue to do so.

Mr. Hickmet: My hon. Friend will be aware of the effect that the increase in raw material costs priced in dollars has had on the British Steel Corporation. Has his hon. Friend who attended the Steel Council meeting yesterday informed him of what success he had in

increasing BSC's steel quota, the United Kingdom's steel quota or United Kingdom steel prices? What is the prospect of offsetting those increased costs?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend will agree that that matter does not arise out of this question, but I am sure that he will find ways of drawing his point to the attention of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To what extent are high interest rates impeding industrial expansion?

Mr. Pattie: Obviously, to some extent. We estimate that higher interest rates have added about £230 million for each 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, but we should not consider that in isolation. Many firms will benefit from the lower value of sterling. It is interesting to note that the 4·5 per cent. increase in base rates in January is equivalent to about 1·25 per cent. of companies' pay bills. Therefore, to return to the original question, a modest slowdown in the growth of earnings would offset the damaging effect, if any, of the increase in interest rates.

Privatisation (Departmental Savings)

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the current estimated savings by his Department for 1984–85 as a result of privatisation schemes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): There have been no privatisations of the functions of my Department in 1984–85. Savings as a result of contracting-out of services are estimated as at least £600,000 in this financial year.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend ensure that small firms are given every opportunity to tender for those schemes?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir. Several contracts have been placed with small firms for cleaning, data preparation, reprographics, press cuttings, the printing of British Business and workshop services.

Mr. Caborn: What savings have been made by privatising parts of the steel industry, especially with regard to Phoenix 1 and 3? When will there be an announcement on Phoenix 2? Are steps being taken to restructure the BSC engineering steel division before Phoenix 2 is announced?

Mr. Fletcher: All those matters are currently under consideration in the Department.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend, as a Minister in the Department, underline the position that every company, big and small, in the private sector, as a matter of course, considers its ancillary services to see whether they would be better handled in-house or out-of-house? Does he agree that that message must be hammered home, especially to Opposition Members, who seem to have forgotten that simple fact?

Mr. Fletcher: It is an important part of Government policy to transfer work out of Government Departments when that is commensurate with sound management and good value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Alton: How can the Minister justify small savings from privatisation when British consumers and industry


can lose so much as a result of procurement decisions by, for instance, British Telecom? Will he assure the House that no decision will be taken by British Telecom to go ahead with systems X or Y until Professor Bryan Carsberg has completed his investigations on behalf of Oftel?

Mr. Fletcher: The Director General of Oftel made a statement on that matter on 22 March. He will consider the implications of any such move.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: As it seems extremely likely that British Telecom will acquire some digital exchanges from Ericsson, is my hon. Friend satisfied that Plessey and GEC have reciprocal access to the Swedish telecommunications market, where Ericsson has almost a state-assured monopoly?

Mr. Fletcher: Most European countries do not have easy access to telecommunications. We are anxious to ensure that those markets are open to British industry, just as British suppliers are seeking quotes elsewhere.

Mr. John Smith: Has not the Minister just admitted that the Government abide by the rules, while all our competitors break them as often as they can? Is it not high time that, instead of apologising for that, Ministers took the more robust defence of British interests as their most important objective?

Mr. Fletcher: We make a robust defence of the interests of British consumers.

New Companies (Registration)

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to facilitate the registration of new companies.

Mr. Fletcher: The time taken to incorporate new companies has been reduced to 15 working days under the simplified procedures introduced by the Companies Act 1981.

Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that his Department is making in this respect. However, with the enormous number of companies being formed, is it not important that we continue to simplify this process, as some people find it difficult to fill out all the forms?

Mr. Fletcher: I will be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend of any difficulties that his constituents have experienced.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Of the new companies that have registered in the past five years, how many are flouting the law by refusing to file their annual accounts? Is the Minister aware that about two fifths of companies in Britain are disobeying the law by doing just that? As the Government are always shouting about the importance of the law, what energetic steps are they taking to ensure that private business obeys the law?

Mr. Fletcher: The backlog is being reduced vigorously and action is being taken against companies which fail to file their accounts in time.

Motor Industry

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions are attached to the block exemption of the motor industry from the competition rules of the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Tebbit: Those designed to help give consumers the benefit of a genuine common market in motor vehicles.

Mr. Forsyth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but is he satisfied that the distribution system under the new regulation can possibly be in the interests of the consumer?

Mr. Tebbit: There is little doubt that the new regulation, when it comes into force, will help the consumer. It is a difficult matter to get a common market in motor vehicles that is properly effective in Europe, not least as the German decision on vehicle emissions has tended to lead to even greater fragmentation of the market.

Mr. Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the present arrangements allow for the necessary price reactions by manufacturers to future changes in taxation and currency among EEC member countries?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, there are protections for the manufacturers, and that is why comparisons with prices in markets that are distorted by excessive taxation or price controls are excluded. It is interesting, in the light of the noises being made a few moments ago about the need to protect British industry rather than the consumer, that there is so little comment from Labour Benches now. They want it both ways.

Mr. Park: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems is that while we may have a Common Market, there are not common conditions throughout the market?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, that is absolutely correct and that is why some parts of the market will not be used for comparative purposes, as it would be unfair to do so. I wish that we could persuade somebody from the Labour Benches to get up and say a good word for the rights of the consumer to buy his motor car at the most advantageous price in the European market.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from organisations representing the textile and knitwear industry regarding the need for an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement; and what response he has given.

Mr. Channon: I have received representations from the TUC, the British Textile Confederation, the British Clothing Industry Association and the Knitting Industries' Federation and from individual companies in those industries. I have told these bodies that their views, and those of other interested parties, will be taken into account in the formulation of the Government's policy.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that substantial concern persists in the knitwear and textile industries, which are major employers of labour, that Ministers are taking an ambivalent attitude towards the extension of the MFA? Will he give an assurance that he understands the disastrous effect that there would be on employment if the arrangement were not effectively renewed as soon as possible?

Mr. Channon: I take note of my hon. Friend's comment. The Government are consulting all concerned and in due course will make a statement. The MFA does not completely run out until the end of next year, so there is still some time.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister not understand that there will be massive job losses if the MFA is abandoned or radically liberalised? Does he not understand also that in west Yorkshire one in three manufacturing jobs are in the textile and clothing industry? As the so-called Budget for jobs has done nothing for areas such as mine, will he give a firm, clear and unequivocal assurance that the Government are committed to renewal of the MFA, and a tough MFA at that?

Mr. Channon: I looked recently at the figures for the Yorkshire wool industry, and I was glad to see that the wool textile sector increased its exports by 23 per cent. last year. All of us want to see a flourishing clothing and textile industry. The Government are consulting, and the figures for unemployment which the hon. Gentleman cites are by no means agreed. This is a matter of great importance, about which the Government are entitled to think clearly.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the textile, clothing and knitwear industries are the country's fourth largest employer, that unanimously the representatives of those industries have demanded a renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement and that the Silberston report, which comes to some very ridiculous conclusions, provides no substantive evidence for those conclusions? Unless the Government renew the MFA, not only in 1986 but subsequently, unemployment in this country will increase and an important manufacturing base will be undermined.

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's views and I understand the feelings expressed by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. Naturally, it is a factor which will be taken into account.

Mr. Winterton: That was a pathetic reply.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of the urgent need to give confidence to this major employer and exporter to invest in new plant, material and machinery? Confidence is needed now. Post-Silberston there is a lack of confidence in the industry. The Minister must act quickly on the MFA to restore confidence so that investment can take place.

Mr. Channon: Of course the Government will have to act with reasonable speed about the matter. On the other hand, I have already pointed out that the MFA does not expire until the end of next year. On an issue of very great importance it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to consult all the interested parties. I am to see some of them tomorrow. I think it is a bit rough to be expected to announce a decision today.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I understand the generality of our stance against protectionism—

Mr. Winterton: It is not protectionism.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend should ask his own questions.

Mr. Winterton: I do, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) must contain himself.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure my right hon. Friend understands that much of the employment in the textile industry is female

intensive in areas of high male unemployment. In that special situation, does the Minister not believe that some agreement is essential?

Mr. Winterton: Quite right.

Mr. Channon: I take my hon. Friend's question extremely seriously. He raises a very important point—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman takes that attitude. The textile and clothing industry is a very important industry. British textile and clothing exports rose by over 15 per cent. last year to almost £2·5 billion. The Government take this question extremely seriously. All of these points will be borne in mind, and of course I note the views of the House on this matter.

Mr. Williams: As the European Community has just vetoed any extension of Government support for the textile industry, and as the Government themselves have deliberately debarred the industry from any modernisation assistance under regional development grants, will the Minister take this opportunity to give the industry a categorical assurance that the Government will fight for a strong MFA?

Mr. Channon: I have now answered this question about nine times. I have already said that the Government are consulting all the interested parties and will announce their conclusion at an early date. I take note of all the points of view expressed by the House. I think that some of the right hon. Gentleman's preamble was misleading, but I certainly take note of what the House thinks.

Frontier Arrangements (Liberalisation)

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the trade implications of the liberalising of frontier arrangements between France, West Germany and the Benelux countries.

Mr. Channon: So far, the trading implications of this possible move are not clear.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if Her Majesty's Government and Lord Cockfield subscribed to all the theories and good intentions involved in creating a common market, but showed reluctance when it came to the practical steps?

Mr. Channon: I agree, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that there are important reasons why we should take particular care of our sea and airports—to ensure that we do not allow criminals in and that we protect animal health. For important, overriding international reasons we should care about what goes on at our ports.

Japan (Trade Deficit)

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom trade deficit for 1984 with Japan; and what action the Government intend to take to rectify this position.

Mr. Tebbit: The visible trade deficit with Japan in 1984 was £2,870 million. I shall take the opportunity of my forthcoming visit to Japan to encourage measures to open Japanese markets to United Kingdom exports.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend not find the figures extremely disturbing? Is the Japanese market now open to British goods and services to the extent that the British market is open to Japanese goods and services?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No, it is not.

Mr. Townend: If it is not, will my right hon. Friend tell the Japanese that the time for prevarication is over and that we want action? Will he tell them that if they do not open the market soon the pressure for retaliation by Britain will be irresistible?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend rightly points to a deep-seated problem which is also experienced by others. The Americans have a deficit on trade with Japan of $32 billion and the Federal Republic of Germany has a deficit with Japan of $3·9 billion, compared with our deficit with Japan of $3·4 billion. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my Japanese hosts the fact that they have a great interest in the open trading system and that if that system is seen not to work because of protectionist measures by any country the whole system will be threatened.

Mr. Foster: Has the Secretary of State noticed the Japanese determination to resist foreign ownership of its telecommunications industry? Does that not contrast with his policy of selling off and selling out Britain at the drop of a hat?

Mr. Tebbit: I thought that there was general applause for the concept that the Japanese economy should be made more open, not that we should try to close our economy. We are vigorous in our action when Japanese malpractice can be proved on such matters as dumping. Vigorous antidumping measures have been taken by the European Community in recent months.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about the importance of employment?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend will not have an answer to his questions if he shouts them at me from a sedentary position.

Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm that while Japan is a specialised and complex market, a number of well-established British trading companies in Tokyo are willing and able to evaluate the suitability of British products for the Japanese market and to help with marketing?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes. British companies are succeeding in the Japanese market. It is a difficult market, not only because of restraints that may be imposed by the Japanese Government, but because of cultural attitudes in Japan. Many British business men do not speak Japanese, whereas many Japanese business men speak English. The Japanese are exceptionally good at maintaining quality and delivery times, whereas in the past that has not been a special characteristic of British manufacturers, who are perpetually hindered by the universal support for every trade dispute, however absurd, by Opposition Members.

Trade Trends

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent trends in British trade.

Mr. Tebbit: Underlying export volume has been rising since mid-1984. Indications are that this will continue in 1985. CBI surveys show manufacturers increasingly optimistic about export prospects.

Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the improved prospects for the engineering industry in the east midlands where some of the bigger firms now have order books extending for 15 or 18 months? Does this not augur well for exports and show that Britain really does mean business?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. and learned Friend is right. It is not merely a matter of what is happening in Leicester, but that manufactured exports, excluding erratic items — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is going on below the Gangway, but I ask hon. Members to listen to the answers.

Mr. Tebbit: As I was saying, manufactured exports, excluding erratic items, are 12 per cent. up in volume terms in the latest three months against the equivalent three months of a year ago. That is against imports, which are only 7 per cent. up, so there is good news there.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Secretary of State think that it is good news that we now have a £4 billion deficit in the balance of trade on manufactured goods? Is that some sign of the success of the Government's policies?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gets rather boring about this matter, and I shall have to be rather boring about it, too, I am afraid, and give him the elementary lesson that it is unlikely that any country can maintain a surplus on every category of trade or with every one of its trading partners. The crucial point is that for the past five years consecutively we have maintained a surplus, and that has not been done since the end of the war—

Mr. John Smith: Oil.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, and oil is an exported item just like textiles.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Oil will run out but textiles will not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). [Interruption.] Well, I think it is very uncharacteristic.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State not agree that our international competitiveness is being undermined by unit labour costs in this country arising considerably faster than those of our major competitors overseas? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Tebbit: It is not a question of what the Government can do because we do not believe that it is right to run an incomes policy, because every one that has been run in the past has failed. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman's party is now committed to introducing an incomes policy and to backing it with a measure to freeze wages. That will interest the electorate when it is put to it just as much as the proposals of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for an incomes policy will interest his colleagues in the trade union movement when they are put to them.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Channon: The European Commission will have to express a view on behalf of member states in July in the GATT textiles committee discussion as to whether the multi-fibre arrangement should be extended, modified or discontinued. The Government are carefully considering what our policy should be.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister appreciate that he will continue to get a rough ride from the House on this issue and that some of his hon. Friends will describe his replies as pathetic until he makes one simple statement, namely that the Government are committed to the renewal of the MFA? Will that statement be made within days, weeks or months?

Mr.. Channon: It will be made at an appropriate time, and clearly it will be made before July, when the decision has to be taken.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the last report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on Britain's export and import performance, and the importance attached in it to maintaining the MFA because of the practices of many of our competitors outside Europe, particularly in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia?

Mr. Channon: We shall naturally want to study what the Select Committee has said, and I shall take particular note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Crowther: Will the Minster bear in mind that a large percentage—probably more than 50 per cent.—of all the textile and clothing imports to this country come from developed countries, not from the MFA countries? What are the Government proposing to do about assisting the textile industry to compete with those countries?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important point. It is perfectly true that

a large number of imports of textiles come from developed countries that are in no way covered by the MFA. The House must address its mind to that problem, and not only to the problem relating to the MFA.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the textile industry that is most successful is that which is not protected? Is it not able to export to Hong Kong and Japan textiles made in this country? It has benefited most, and so have the consumers benefited by that activity.

Mr. Channon: There was certainly an extremely successful exhibition, sale and sales promotion of British textiles and clothing in Hong Kong not long ago, so. I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

Industrial Development (Amble)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward new proposals to assist industrial development in Amble.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I have no plans for proposals specifically to assist industrial development in Amble, although companies there are, of course, able to take advantage of nationwide Government schemes of assistance for industry in exactly the same way as companies anywhere else, provided that they meet the relevant criteria.

Mr. Beith: As the Minister says, those forms of assistance are nationwide and available to all the competing areas with far lower levels of unemployment. Will he come and look for himself, and realise that his decision to exclude Amble from regional development status was a mistake and is something that he should rectify?

Mr. Lamont: We are not planning to review the map again so soon after we announced the decision. The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on several occasions during Question Time and on Adjournment debates. He knows the reasons why we decided to exclude Amble. I am afraid that the matter cannot be reconsidered at the moment.

Television Licence Fee

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the financing of the BBC.
In December 1981, the BBC was granted increases in the colour television licence fee to £46 and the black and white licence fee to £15, and was required to live within the income thus generated for the period ending 31 March this year. This it has done. The result of the way its expenditure was, as planned, phased over this period is that the cost of its service in the current year equates to a £51 licence fee. As the House knows, the corporation applied last year for an increase in the colour licence fee to £65 and in the black and white licence fee to £18, to last for a further three years.
That application has stimulated renewed discussion about the possibility and desirability of some or all of the BBC's services being financed through advertising or by means other than the licence fee. On the one hand, it is suggested that at least a proportion of the BBC's services are of a character that would not be materially affected if it was financed in whole or in part by advertising. On the other hand, it is said that the impact of advertising is bound to lead to a lowering of standards, and that if advertising were introduced in one area the pressure for it to be extended to all BBC services would be irresistible and damaging. In considering these issues, however, it is essential not just to consider the impact on the BBC of any change in its methods of financing; it is also necessary to take account of the impact of any such change on independent broadcasting, on other media supported by advertising revenue and on the Exchequer.
The issues raised are complex. In my view, they require more detailed, careful and, above all, comprehensive analysis than they have so far received before any conclusions can be reached. I am therefore appointing a committee to review all of these matters and I am glad to announce that Professor Alan Peacock, chief economic adviser to the Departments of Industry and Trade from 1973 to 1976, more recently vice-chancellor of the university of Buckingham, and now at Heriot Watt university, has agreed to chair it. I hope to announce the names of the other members of the committee before long.
The review will be required to assess the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC's home services either as an alternative or as a supplement to the income received through the licence fee and to identify a range of options with an indication of their advantages and disadvantages. One of the central questions for the committee is the possible impact the introduction of advertising would have on the character and quality of all broadcast services. It will also consider the scope for the BBC to obtain additional revenue from the consumer other than through the licence fee. I am circulating a copy of the full terms of reference in the Official Report, and copies are also available in the Vote Office.
I must stress that the appointment of the committee does not in any way imply that the Government have decided to make changes in the present arrangements, still less changes of any particular character. None the less, the appointment of the committee does mean that options for a change will have to be considered in the light of its

report. I cannot, of course, commit the inquiry to a precise time scale, but I hope that the committee will have completed its work by the summer of next year, after which its conclusions will have to be carefully considered.
I have therefore decided that the present licence fee settlement should be for a period of two years, with the intention that any possible changes in the system of financing broadcasting should be considered in the light of the committee's report before the licence fee falls to be further renewed. But if decisions cannot be made in the light of the report within two years, or if it is decided that there should be no change to the system, this settlement will run for a third year with the licence fee continuing at the rates I am announcing today. The BBC should therefore plan its expenditure for the next three years on the basis that it must for that period live within the income equivalent to that generated by fees at the level announced today.
As to the level of the fee, my task has, as always, been to balance the interests of the licence fee payer with the need to ensure that the corporation's home services are adequately funded.
I start from the present cost of operating the BBC's services. The 1981 settlement provided the BBC with an income at the rate of £46 per colour licence until the end of March 1985. Taking account of inflation, it was clearly understood at the time that the effect of this was that the BBC would be spending at less than the rate of £46 per licence at the beginning and more at the end of the period. Currently, services are being provided at a cost of approximately £51 per colour licence.
There will no doubt be some inescapable cost increases over the next three years, and the corporation would like to improve and enhance its services in various ways. On the other hand, it is right that the BBC should strive for greater efficiency and economy, and there is a limit to what licence fee payers can reasonably be expected to afford.
In accordance with previous practice, I do not propose to give a detailed account of the way in which I have balanced these various factors and it will be for the corporation to decide how to use the money available to it. I believe, however, that the BBC could and must achieve greater productivity than it has done in the past or has so far planned for the future. The BBC already has a useful programme of activity reviews and has stressed its commitment to achieving value for money. But, in the light of the report from Peat Marwick Mitchell commissioned by the BBC with my agreement and subsequently published, I believe there is scope for the BBC to achieve greater efficiency through improved management procedures and strengthened management attitudes.
The BBC has already produced an action plan to implement all but two of the specific recommendations in the Peat Marwick report by the end of 1985–86, with three quarters of them being implemented within the next six months. The governors will also be calling for reports every six months not only on the implementation of these specific recommendations and the continuous programme of activity reviews but also on the management training programme and other steps designed to ensure that the change in emphasis in management style and approach sought by Peat is being achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the fee?"]
Taking all the various factors into account, I believe a settlement substantially below the level requested by the BBC should enable the corporation to maintain its present level and range of services. But the BBC's ability to enhance its services will depend very largely on the degree to which it achieves the improvements in efficiency that I have referred to. [Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Get a move on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Home Secretary is just coming to an important point.

Mr. Brittan: You have been prescient, Mr. Speaker, but characteristically so.
On that basis I have decided to increase the fee for a colour television licence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]— from £46 to £58 and for a monochrome television licence from £15 to £18. I have laid the necessary regulations which bring the new fees into effect at midnight tonight.
I of course recognise that the licence fee represents a substantial sum for many people, particularly so when it is seen as an annual payment. There are now a number of schemes to enable those who wish to do so to spread the cost in advance over the year. In addition to the television savings stamp scheme, it is possible for people to pay towards their next licence by instalments through a direct debit from their bank account or by cash instalments over post office counters. Payments may also be made by credit card. But I am conscious that far too few people pay for their licences in any of these ways compared with the number who would find the licence fee easier to pay if they did so. I shall therefore be urgently examining with the BBC and the Post Office whether any improvements can be made in those arrangements and whether any new arrangements can be made to help people to pay the licence fee without greatly increasing costs of administration or imposing extra burdens on the taxpayer.
I appreciate that the review that I have announced will lead to a period of uncertainty, not only for the BBC but for the other media, in particular independent broadcasting. But our broadcasting system has inevitably had to develop over the years, and there is nothing new in the fact that it has to face the possibility of change now. What will not change is the Government's commitment to broadcasting services which achieve the highest standards, in quality, popularity and diversity of consumer choice.

Following are the terms of reference:

(i) To assess the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC's Home Services, either as an alternative or a supplement to the income now received through the licence fee, including

(a) the financial and other consequences for the BBC, for independent television and independent local radio, for the prospective services of cable, independent national radio and direct broadcasting by satellite, for the press and the advertising industry and for the Exchequer; and
(b) the impact on the range and quality of existing broadcasting services; and

(ii) to identify a range of options for the introduction, in varying amounts and on different conditions of advertising or sponsorship on some or all of the BBC's Home Services, with an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and
(iii) to consider any proposals for securing income from the consumer other than through the licence fee.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary's statement lasted 11 minutes. It could have been limited to the three words, "I cop out."

The statement is another example of the shoddy and opportunistic approach — [Interruption.] — that is the biggest cheer so far today from the Conservative Benches — the shoddy and opportunistic approach which has characterised the Home Secretary's tenure of office. His reception from his own side shows that such an approach satisfies nobody.
The Government have announced an inquiry, but let me make it clear that Labour Members consider that it is the wrong inquiry. An inquiry into the finances of the BBC, and, indeed, of broadcasting in general, is one thing. An inquiry almost solely confined to the effects of the introduction of advertising and options for advertising is unacceptable. It is based on an assumption that advertising is the only alternative to the present system that is worth considering, and that is an assumption that Labour Members utterly reject.
Therefore, let me make it clear that, whatever the outcome of the inquiry, there are no circumstances in which a Labour Government will permit advertising on either BBC television or radio. Professor Peacock must take that into account in his activities—

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Robert Atkins: We do not take any notice of you; why should he?

Mr. Kaufman: Those Conservative Members who jeer will not be here when the licence fee next comes round for renewal.
Professor Peacock must take that into account in his activities as a firm statement of policy and principle.
Despite shortcomings which we could all illustrate, Britain has the highest standards of broadcasting and television in the world. Those standards are set, and they are maintained by ITV, and by the BBC as a public broadcasting organisation. It is that standard that prevails in Britain and to which ITV has to live up. Advertising would change the nature of the BBC permanently and irrevocably, and we reject it.
As the licence fee rises ever higher, it becomes ever more regressive. The lower the income, the bigger the burden. Schemes for staggering the burden over the year do not make it any less of a burden.
A Labour Government will consider how the licence cost might be taken into account in assessing the needs of those on supplementary benefit. A Labour Government will also phase out the licence so that no retirement pensioners will have to pay for a television licence. Television is one of the few pleasures available to many pensioners. We shall make sure that that pleasure is not taxed. I make that commitment clearly and firmly on behalf of the Labour party and the next Government of this country.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman began his observations by referring to what he called the Government's shoddy and opportunistic approach. His strictures might have carried a touch more weight if they were not applied to everyone and everything said on any occasion. Such observations have a ritualistic character that totally debases them.
The right hon. Gentleman says that it will be the wrong inquiry, relating only to advertising. He is mistaken. The inquiry does not relate only to advertising but will also


consider sponsorship and any other proposals for securing income from the consumer other than through the licence fee, including such measures as subscription.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's ringing statement that in no circumstances will a Labour Government permit advertising, that commitment is not something that we need greatly fear. It is most unlikely ever to be put to the test.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the highest standards of broadcasting. I do not disagree with that assessment. The question is not whether standards should be reduced but how they should be financed.
The right hon. Gentleman made another ringing statement, to the effect that pensioners would no longer have to pay the licence fee. The cost of implementing that pledge would be £325 million a year. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that that pledge has any credibility or will put him in the position in which it would be up to him to decide whether advertising should be taken, he gravely misjudges the judgment and good sense of the British people.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I totally reject the squalid electioneering of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and assure my right hon. Friend that I believe that, although many people will find the increase from £46 to £58 a considerable one, they will nevertheless still feel that the television licence represents some of the best value for money in this country.
While fully accepting the need for an inquiry into the future financing of the BBC, I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions. First, can I take it that the inquiry will be allowed to consider the scope and role of the BBC today? Secondly, can I assume that the terms of reference of the inquiry will not prevent it from deciding that there should be no advertising on the BBC?

Mr. Brittan: Among many other things, the inquiry will investigate the impact of any changes on the BBC. That being so, I do not see how it can fail to look closely at what the BBC is doing today.
On the second point, I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the inquiry would be perfectly free to come to the conclusion that he mentions.

Mr. Clement Freud: We accept the rise in the colour television licence fee but greatly regret the more than index-linked rise in monochrome licences. It is right that the terms of reference for Professor Peacock's committee should be so wide-ranging, but will the Home Secretary assure the House that the members of the committee will reflect a wide range of expertise in public service broadcasting?

Mr. Brittan: My intention is that those who are appointed should have no preconceived notions and should be broadly based and qualified to bring judgment and wide experience to their task.

Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, owing to the pace of change in all broadcasting, the report of any committee is almost out of date before it appears? For example, the accepted view on cable television, direct broadcasting by satellite, the fourth channel or the income of television companies one

year ago would already be out of date now. We know nothing about what will happen on our screens with the invasion of satellites from other countries. We should need the wisdom of Solomon to decide on the future of the BBC's role in one committee. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need a standing advisory committee on broadcasting of the highest calibre, to which the Government could turn for advice as required?

Mr. Brittan: I accept that the pace of change in the industry is extremely fast. Nevertheless, decisions have to be taken using the best information at the time. Now is the right time to set in hand an inquiry to consider the impact of financing changes, such as advertising on the BBC and its impact on other parts of the system. The inquiry might conclude that the impact is uncertain, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. That would be an important part of its deliberations. I see the force of what my hon. Friend says about a standing advisory committee but, for the moment at least, we should let Professor Peacock continue with his deliberations.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does the Home Secretary accept that 13 million people in Britain do not regard £58 as disposable income? Does he accept that the committee has the right to consider Government subsidies? Does he also accept that the committee can examine sponsorship in sport and current advertising on the BBC such as the Canon league and the Milk Cup? Will he guarantee that the House will eventually have a vote on the matter, as otherwise my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be making policy without giving a ballot to the rest of us, rather like the Prime Minister does?

Mr. Brittan: I know of the hon. Gentleman's support for a remedy in the form of advertising. How he has that out with his right hon. Friend is beyond my ken. The committee is not being asked to consider Government subsidy, but sponsorship is included in its terms of reference.

Mr. Tim Brinton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people feel that he has got the answer right today? The temporary rise was necessary, but the inquiry was urgent. Will he add two things to the committee's term of reference — first, that it must consider what the licence fee should be used for in terms of services, if it continues to exist; secondly, that it should consider whether to look towards sponsored programmes but deny the BBC straight advertising as, if it advertises, there will be a question mark over whether we need a BBC?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that examination of these matters is urgently needed and that any increase announced today should not prejudice the outcome of the examination. I hear what my hon. Friend says about sponsorship. That is within the inquiry's terms of reference. As to examining what the money is used for, in producing a range of options, which is what the inquiry will be asked to do, it is bound to consider the consequences in terms of what will be provided for any combination in that range.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the shortfall between the figure he has announced and that which the BBC


thought essential might postpone and even cancel the five-year plans for a broadcasting service in the Gaelic language? Does he recall that in the 1981 licence fee settlement there was an allocation which gave a great boost to Welsh language broadcasting? Is he now prepared to consider a similar recommendation in respect of Scotland?

Mr. Brittan: I believe that what I have announced will enable the BBC to carry on with its current plans. If it wishes to make any advances or changes, that is a matter for the corporation. I have said that the extent to which it would be able to do that will depend on the extent to which it is able to keep its costs down and to improve productivity. I have clearly indicated why I think there is scope for both.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some Conservative Members would be more enthusiastic about an increase in the licence fee if the BBC generally showed a more patriotic stance and, for instance, did not denigrate our national heroes?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware that that is a sentiment which others, as well as my hon. Friend, share.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Home Secretary try again to justify this inquisition into the future of public service broadcasting? Will he give the House a categoric assurance that, by the appointment of this inquisition, he is not implying that he expects it to come to his foregone conclusion that there should be advertising at least on BBC1 and BBC2?

Mr. Brittan: There is no question of it coming to my foregone conclusion, because I do not have one.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the figure announced today will be seen as a victory for the BBC? Will he make it quite clear to the BBC that, unless it economises in the way that is necessary and accepts some limited advertising, it cannot expect such increases in the fee? It should also be encouraged to continue with its local radio services, which are at least successful.

Mr. Brittan: When yesterday I told the BBC what I would announce today, the demeanour of those emerging from my room was not that of victors.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does not the Home Secretary agree that the BBC is probably the best television and radio service in the world and that any attempt to change its method of financing would jeopardise that? Does he not understand that many Labour Members have great suspicion of the enormous vested interest in advertising firms among Conservative Members? More than 50 Conservative Members have private vested interests in advertising agencies. Are not these the people, along with the Prime Minister, who are urging the increased financing of the BBC by advertising, and would that not be the death knell of the BBC's present quality?

Mr. Brittan: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members is that he seems to be interested in the personalities—

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, we are.

Mr. Brittan: —and we are concerned about the arguments. If what the hon. Gentleman says is right, he will have ample opportunity to make that case before the Peacock committee.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: While accepting that £325 million is too much for the rest of us to pay so that retirement pensioners like myself can have television licences, will the committee have scope to examine ways in which the extra cost can be mitigated for retirement pensioners living alone?

Mr. Brittan: No, that will not be within the committee's terms of reference.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I express the hope that the Home Secretary will not listen to talk of patriotism and the BBC—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because the most patriotic broadcasting and television system in the world comes from Moscow and we do not want that kind of thing here. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, whatever happens about finance, there must be no Government or political control of any kind?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that the BBC should be independent, and I seek no political influence whatever over it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that broadcasting is moving as fast as my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) has suggested and that it is irrational to approach the matter with a closed mind, as some people have done. It is for exactly that reason that the committee is being appointed. To say, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did, that in no circumstances would advertising be contemplated by the Labour party is to approach the matter with a closed mind.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential for the committee to look into the vast amount of free advertising on BBC radio and television day by day, which has reached almost scandalous proportions?

Mr. Brittan: Yes, I do agree.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are few more unpleasant, unpatriotic or obscene images in society today than that of Conservative Members slavering at the chance of picking over the bones of a dismembered great national institution?
Has not the committee been set up specifically to follow the Prime Minister's dictum that advertising should now be introduced? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the Committee is not as loaded as its terms of reference? Will he bear in mind that there are other ways to deal with the matter besides advertising, such as taxation and the measures suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?
Above all—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Buchan: Above all, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that advertising is a concealed tax which hurts the poor more than the rich?

Mr. Brittan: I do not favour financing the BBC out of taxation, for the reasons advanced by the right hon.
Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), himself a former Home Secretary. I cannot believe that that is the way to preserve the independence of the BBC.
As for the other matters, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about the motives behind the setting up of the committee are wholly unfounded. It is astonishing that a party which regards itself as progressive in its thinking should have such a completely closed mind on an issue.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: We do not. We just know what you are up to.

Mr. Brittan: To refuse even to recognise the possibility of change in a constantly changing situation is an extraordinary attitude.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this has been a week of strange birds, with cuckoos, grouse and now a peacock, and that the last is the most unnecessary of all? Does he agree that most Governments set up commissions when they know what they should do but do not want to make a public statement about it? Is it not time that we accepted that "Blankety-Blank", "The Eastenders" and sport will not be depraved by advertising? Should we not now have some limited advertising to see how we go instead of giving way to the BBC and offering it a £58 licence fee? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us would be inclined to congratulate the governor and director general of the BBC on their great victory in this respect?

Mr. Brittan: Governments who do not want to make decisions do not appoint committees with such a short time scale. My hon. Friend's view contrasts with the almost unanimous view of the Opposition that the whole thing was a plot. In fact, it is neither a means of avoiding a decision nor a way of imposing a decision. It is a way of bringing independent expertise to bear on a problem which has implications not just for the BBC but for the independent television sector and broadcasting generally, for the newspapers and for a wide variety of other interests. If my hon. Friend makes that comparison, he will find that other interests do not necessarily take the view to which he has sought to give currency.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Having asked everyone to keep an open mind about financing, will the Minister himself keep an open mind on the question of pensioners living alone, especially those on supplementary benefit?
Secondly, although we may not wish the BBC to become a patriotic body, we expect it to be neutral, especially when dealing with terrorism. Does the Home Secretary appreciate that many taxpayers and licence fee payers take strong exception to paying a licence fee which is often used to portray terrorism? Does he agree that we should follow the example of Radio Telefis Eireann and keep terrorists off the screen?

Mr. Brittan: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's deeply held views about terrorism, which I think we all share.
The cost of a concession for single pensioners living alone would be about £125 million. That is a very considerable sum to add to the Exchequer.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the Peacock review as an eminently sensible way to proceed, but will my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that at a little more than £1 per week the licence fee is still good value and does not greatly exceed the usual cost of subscribing to a newspaper for the same period? Does he agree, however, that a Gresham's law of broadcasting has been evident since 1954—that the bad drives out the good?

Mr. Brittan: Those matters are at the very centre of the Peacock inquiry and I do not wish to prejudge that, but I know that what my hon. Friend has said represents a standard opinion.

Mr. Allen McKay: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman already closed his own mind to the plight of the pensioners? Will he consider the numerous 10-minute Bills that we have had on this, in consultation with old people's associations which have suggested methods of providing concessions for pensioners? Does he agree that it is brass neck for him to talk about the millions that this would cost, when he is a member of a Government who have just spent billions of pounds trying to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers and the trade union movement?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that comparison assists us. It is worth pointing out, however, that the cost of the television licence is a component in the retail price index on the basis of which increases in pensions are assessed.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that more than 30 per cent. of my constituents who are pensioners will welcome the Peacock inquiry but will be appalled at the 26 per cent. increase in the licence fee? Will he accept that many of them have legitimate reservations about the need for the BBC to expand its services so greatly in local radio and in the provision of breakfast television, which many of them regard as totally unnecessary? Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that economies could be made in those areas?

Mr. Brittan: It is only fair to point out that the cost of breakfast television is £8 million per year, or just 1 per cent. of the BBC's total income. Traditionally, these have been regarded as matters for the BBC and not for the Government. It is precisely because maintaining the BBC's financing in the way that has previously obtained has led to increases that many people find it difficult to bear that we are asking the Peacock committee to examine alternative methods of financing the BBC, either in whole or in part. Until the committee has completed its work, however, it would be unrealistic to assume that we could proceed other than in a balanced way by applying the system that has existed so far.

Mr. John Ryman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned he cost of concessionary television licences for old people. Does he recognise and deplore the anomaly in the law which compels old people to pay the full cost of the television licence unless they live in certain types of accommodation with a warden? Does he agree that that is utterly unfair because it means that some pay the full licence fee while others pay only a nominal fee? Is it not also an encouragement for all sorts of schemes with titular wardens to avoid paying the full fee? Will the Home Secretary do something about that?
Also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is enough.

Mr. Ryman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair.

Mr. Ryman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked one question and that is enough.

Mr. Brittan: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out an anomaly, and I would not seek to say that the present system is exactly right. We are constantly considering that, but it is not easy to find a solution.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised that his statement will be greeted with great dismay in Scotland at a time when people are facing massive rate increases because of revaluation. A 26 per cent. increase for the BBC, which is completely inefficient, cannot be justified. Why does he not dig his heels in and give the BBC only an increase in line with inflation, instead of 56 per cent.?

Mr. Brittan: When my hon. Friend talks about a 26 per cent. increase, he does not take adequate account of the time scale. The last increase was in December 1981, which must be taken into account. There may well be a case for changing the system, which is what the Peacock committee will look into, but we cannot prejudge the issue by changing it by default in advance.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Home Secretary accept that continued dependence on a flat rate poll tax system, such as the licence fee, inevitably involves hardship and some injustice, and that it is therefore perfectly sensible to have a serious examination of alternative sources of finance, including advertising? Does he also accept that the review would carry greater conviction if he had set up the inquiry last year when the problem first arose, and if he had established a tighter time scale than the two or three years implied in his statement.

Mr. Brittan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the inquiry. The time scale must be sufficient to allow proper examination of these matters. The impact on areas outside the BBC requires proper consideration. I do not think that the time scale that I have envisaged, but which I cannot impose, is unreasonable. The question whether to set up the inquiry last year or this year is not a fruitful area of controversy. The point is that it has been set up now.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the committee will be asked to look at the financing of community radio, bearing in mind the fact that some areas of the country have neither local independent radio nor local BBC radio, and that there is great uncertainty surrounding the future of community radio?

Mr. Brittan: Community radio does not exist at present. I have made a positive announcement of its introduction. I hope to report about the precise financing and regulation of community radio soon, but I am not yet in a position to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has announced a bailing-out

system, which flies in the face of monetarism, for the BBC, which consists of uneconomic units of production without reserves, unlike the philosophy that the Government applied to allegedly uneconomic pits? He has brought a bloke from the cloisters to organise a committee which will last until after the general election. Why did he not appoint Lord Bridge for the job — he deals with things extremely swiftly? If the Home Secretary wants to know where money for pensioners can come from, he could cancel Trident. There is plenty of money there. Then the pensioners would be on the same basis as all hon. Members who manage to see television without paying a licence fee.

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that the licence fee and Trident are viable alternatives.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the scope for greater efficiency, but that does appear to be included in the inquiry. Does he accept that many teams of the BBC are grossly over-inflated, that there should be room for greater efficiency, and that an increase to £58 will bring great hardship to many elderly people and to the lower paid in regions such as my own?

Mr. Brittan: The fact that I am greatly worried about efficiency in the BBC is reflected in my suggestion that the Peat Marwick review should take place, my statements this afternoon about the follow up, which is of great importance, and the measures taken to deal with the specific recommendations and its more general criticisms of the Peat Marwick review. The six-monthly review of those matters is of great importance. Those matters need to be examined, and the machinery is in hand for doing so.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the Home Secretary aware that our public broadcasting system is the envy of people throughout the world? Is he further aware that many people are suspicious, because of the ideological drift of the Conservative party, that this is yet another committee which will attempt to undermine public broadcasting? The Government have already started with local radio and are now moving into national radio and television. Are we to be assured that the chairman, Professor Peacock, is an independent chairman, or is he another member of the Conservative party who is as Right-wing as can be found?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that Professor Peacock was an adviser to the Labour Government from 1974 to 1976, although he was appointed from 1973. There is not much to be gained from such statements. Opposition Members must get their heads together and decide whether their case is that this is a subtle plot to force advertising on the BBC, or a way of seeing the problem through until after the general election. It is neither. Curiously enough this is what it says it is — an independent inquiry into the methods of financing the BBC, without any foregone conclusions attached.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many hon. Members will be disappointed that he has been unable in the past six months to make a statement of this nature to enable us to debate the subject fully and properly before the announcement of the increase? Will he bear inimind that one of the bodies which should make representations to the


Peacock committee is this House? Will he encourage the Leader of the House to set at least two days aside for a debate in the Chamber to allow all hon. Members to speak on the subject?

Mr. Brittan: There will be two views about whether that is the best way of giving evidence to the Committee. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Will the Home Secretary reconsider his reply to the question about the anomaly that some pensioners pay only 5p for a licence and others the vast new sum that he announced today? It is totally discredited and objected to by people right across the political spectrum. It is no good the Government saying that they are trying to look into that. Will the Home Secretary not submit the matter to the inquiry but do something about it long before the inquiry reports?

Mr. Brittan: I will not submit it to the inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are considering the matter. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South will agree that it is fair to say that successive Governments have examined the anomaly, and that the task of finding a solution which would not either cost vast sums to the Exchequer or deprive people of something to which they are accustomed is not easy.

Mr. John Watts: While I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to set up a committee of inquiry, can he justify the excessive level of the increase that he has announced, which, by my calculation, is 14 per cent. above the current cost of £51, to which he referred in his statement, and far ahead of any anticipated increase in inflation for the two years over which the fee is intended to run?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that the figure may have to stand for three years. He should also take into account that we must consider both the prospective rates of inflation and costs. Costs are affected by what the BBC has to pay. The market leader in this is not the BBC, but ITV. BBC costs are 30 per cent. below those of ITV.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind the fact that we are operating under a timetable today. Therefore, I may be unable to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak. Nevertheless, I shall bear in mind those whom I do not call for any debate that may take place. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes.

Mr. Francis Maude: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the £6 a year increase that he has announced is almost as much as the BBC asked for to cover three years, and that that places him under very little pressure to implement the improvements in efficiency which the Peat Marwick Mitchell report identified? Does he accept that it is crucial that the result of the inquiry leads the way to breaching the principle of inviolability to which the BBC is so attached? Is it not crucial to introduce another form of finance so that the outdated licence fee system can be scrapped as soon as possible?

Mr. Brittan: The last point is a matter for the inquiry. On the first point, the BBC asked for £65.

Mr. David Maclean: Although my right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on going some way down the road which my hon. Friends have been urging, does he accept that many Conservative Members believe that the increase, which is three times above the level of expected inflation, cannot be justified and that the time scale for the inquiry is too lax? Furthermore, when we see the paranoia in the Opposition about having an inquiry into the dark corridors of the BBC and when advertising is mentioned, does he not smell a rat? Does it not make him think that Conservative Members may be right?

Mr. Brittan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the paranoia of the Opposition, and I made clear my view on that in answer to questions from some Labour Members. As this matter will have implications for the rest of communications, not just for the BBC, I do not believe that the time scale is anything other than tight. As to costs, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), I made it clear why a straightforward comparison with inflation is misleading, because the BBC is, in many respects, a price taker, not a price maker. Anyone who knows the relationship between BBC costs and ITV costs will confirm that that is so.

Mr. David Harris: In view of the importance of the subject to millions of people, and taking into account the obvious anxiety of hon. Members on both sides of the House, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the time has come when a decision of such importance should be made by the House? Many of us believe that we do not need yet another committee to tell us that the BBC is thoroughly overstretched in what it is trying to do, and also overmanned.

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that the Committee will be concerned only with the point made by my hon. Friend. It will be concerned with the impact of specific changes, the nature of which may be stated in general terms by some of my hon. Friends, but which have not been outlined specifically. Nor have we studied the impact of what hon. Members have suggested on the independent television sector, on newspapers and on the Exchequer. There is a need for an inquiry, and I defend its setting up.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the licence fee appears on the retail price index and is taken into consideration for supplementary benefit? Will he ask the Peacock committee to consider a two-tier licence fee, with wage earners paying the normal fee, and pensioners, who are currently ineligible for the 5p licence, and the unemployed paying a substantially reduced fee?

Mr. Brittan: I confirm that the RPI includes the cost of the licence fee and that the increase in the licence fee will be reflected in all benefits that are related to the RPI. The Peacock committee will take a wide range of evidence and will be able to consider all the matters which my hon. Friend raised.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, by granting a licence fee increase above the rate of inflation, he is encouraging the BBC to become less efficient instead of


more? Does he accept that his point about the IBA is invalid? Many Conservative Members believe that, if advertising appeared on the BBC, it would encourage the IBA to become more efficient.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend's latter point is of the greatest importance. However, he must remember that that desirable process cannot take place under the present system. At present, the BBC depends, to some extent, on what the ITV companies can pay. The position might be different if we introduced changes such as those suggested by my hon. Friend and others, but we do not have that system yet.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of my constituents would consider an increase of 26 per cent. as excessive? When many organisations, private and public, have had to keep down increases in costs to the level of inflation, why could not the BBC's costs have been kept down to that level since 1981? Why were manning levels excluded from the investigation by Peat Marwick Mitchell?

Mr. Brittan: The investigation by Peat Marwick Mitchell disclosed many matters. There were 30 specific recommendations, apart from the general ones. Peat Marwick Mitchell was in no way inhibited, and, in the part of my statement which was perhaps less audible, I gave a clear commitment on my part and on the part of the BBC that what Peat Marwick Mitchell recommended should be pursued vigorously.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the most offensive aspect of the increase is the element of compulsion? Will the Peacock committee consider the idea of people who wish to opt out of receiving the BBC television signal being able to have their television sets so adapted?

Mr. Brittan: That is certainly something which the Peacock committee will be able to consider.

Mr. Robert Atkins: How do I explain the anomaly to my constituents who live in council-owned sheltered accommodation next to private sheltered accommodation, that those who live in the council accommodation pay only 5p for their licence fees, whereas those who live in the private accommodation, which is identical, must pay the full rate? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the committee to consider that ridiculous anomaly?

Mr. Brittan: That is not a matter for the Committee, but I am acutely conscious of the anomaly. In answer to previous questions, I explained the problems that we have in dealing with it.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although the inquiry will be widely welcomed, there is no evidence in the actions or statements by the BBC that it will ever be willing to seek economies or alternative sources of finance? Whatever the result of the inquiry, change will have to be imposed by his Department.

Mr. Brittan: When the committee reports we shall have to consider its conclusions and the alternatives that it proposes. The decision about what to do at that point will not be made by the BBC.

Mr. Michael Brown: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on appointing Professor Peacock to chair the inquiry. He is a distinguished man, in so far as he taught me economics at York university. I lament the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend will probably be surrounded by those who will not be anxious to publish the results of an inquiry which may be in line with what Conservative Members look forward to.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend will have observed during his studies that Professor Peacock is not a man who is readily persuaded to take a view different from the one that he holds.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a general welcome in the House for the recent development of your allowing extended questions on statements so that the House can have almost a mini-debate. In the past, such important matters were sometimes dealt with by written answer, with no opportunity for debate. We must thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. However, would you consider another innovation? When we have such statements, which relate not only to political matters but to matters of interest, should not hon. Members preface their questions with a statement of interest?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a Register of Members' Interests. What he suggests will not be necessary.

Provision for Young People in Rural Areas

Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move,
That leave to given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for facilities and amenities and to extend the rights of young people living in rural and remote parts of the United Kingdom.
The intention of the Bill is to help our younger constituents who live in rural areas. We live in an overwhelmingly urban country, with an urban-dominated Parliament and Civil Service. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of our laws and practices tend to reflect that fact. The solution to rural problems simply cannot be to make our rural areas urban. Therefore, the intention of my Bill is to outline a number of ways in which some of the greater disadvantages can be alleviated. The sectors to be covered are employment, transport and housing.
The real solution to rural employment problems is simply more jobs, because, sadly, unemployment is not just an urban problem. The statistics for high levels of unemployment in the travel-to-work areas show that five out of six of the worst areas can be described as more rural than urban. They are Newquay, Cardigan, Irvine, Sutherland, Skegness and Whitby. Some of the problems experienced by those in the remoter parts are unique, and Parliament could do something to alleviate them if it were to apply its mind.
For example, if a jobcentre is 10 miles from one's home, it is simply impossible to visit it every day because of the obvious problem of the cost of transport. Therefore, is it not possible for a system to be developed in rural areas whereby sub-post offices are equipped with telex machines so that information on available jobs is brought much closer to the people seeking employment?
For example, it is clear that the success or failure of the youth training scheme will depend to a large extent on quality monitoring. In urban areas, 20 trainees may work together in one factory, and that means that there is no problem in monitoring. However, in rural areas, 20 trainees may be on 20 different sites, and those sites may be miles apart. Already, YTS managers are saying that they do not have the resources satisfactorily to monitor the quality of the courses.
For those on the YTS in rural areas, travel costs of over £3 are repayable. However, even £3 represents a substantial proportion of the small allowance, and it is worth remembering that the trainees in these rural areas are usually in workplaces that do not have a subsidised work canteen in which they can eat.
Many problems revolve around transport, and even where it is available full fares apply after the age of 14. We are moving towards a point at which most will be in either full-time education or in Government-sponsored training schemes until they are 18. Therefore, this

imposition seems monstrously unfair and inappropriate to the times in which we live. Very often, the effect is to keep the young from any any social life revolving round their work or education.
Recently, the Government imposed a flat rate assistance for travelling costs for those attending university. This is a typically urban solution to the problem. The nearest university to my home is 90 miles away, the second 150 and the third 180. I have not checked the matter in great detail, but I have reason to believe that Londoners may have a slightly better choice than that.
No real harm would be done if we allowed people under the age of 17 to take professional driving lessons. The available car may be only the family's spare Mini, and not everyone can afford a car, but in rural areas it is amazing how many do. Small concessions such as this would help the affected communities. The new Transport Bill may change the whole basis of transport in rural areas, but that is not the matter for this Bill.
In housing, in percentage terms the position is worse in rural areas than in urban. There is no such thing as a hard-to-let council house. The young marrieds have no chance and the single do not even ask. Without doubt, a major cause of this is the phenomenon of second homes. In my county, in a dozen parishes over a fifth of all housing is used in this way. We are aware that there are parts of Wales where the statistics are substantially worse.
This phenomenon is sustained by letting these properties by the week, fortnight or month during the summer—what are called summer lets in my area. This is a trade and business, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not understand why the Government will not make it subject to change of use planning consent. Such controls would put back into local hands some control over housing for the community. Uncontrolled, it is destroying communities and annihilating the hopes of the young who want to live in their district. Intolerable is the politest word that I can find to describe the housing prospects of the young in many rural areas.
I seek the support of the House for this Bill and the ideas contained in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

PROVISION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. David Penhaligon accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for facilities and amenities and to extend the rights of young people living in rural and remote parts of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Reports [12 March and 26 March] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton,]

Reports considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee [12 March]:

That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be new Clauses, Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 4, Schedule No. 1, Clause No. 5, Schedule No. 2, Clause No. 6, Schedule No. 3, Clause No. 7, Schedules Nos. 4 and 5, Clause No. 8, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 9 and 10, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 11 to 15, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 16 to 18, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 19 to 28, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 29 to 36, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 37 and 38, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 39 to 55, Schedule No. 13, Clauses Nos. 56 to 82, Schedule No. 14, Clauses Nos. 83 to 89, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 90 to 97, Schedule No. 16 and Clauses Nos. 98 to 101, new Schedules and Amendments to Schedule No. 17;
(2) the allotted days which under the order [11th February] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses
10 pm



Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 5
Midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Part III
6 pm



Amendments up to the end of Part V
7 pm



Remaining proceedings on Consideration
8.30 pm



Third Reading
10 pm

Following is the report of the Business Committee [26 March]:
That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 12th March be varied by substituting the following provisions for those in the Table at the end of that Resolution:—

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses
7.30 pm



Amendments up to the end of subsection (2) of Clause 1
10.30 pm



Amendments up to the end of Schedule 5
Midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Part III
6 pm



Amendments up to the end of Part V
7.30 pm



Remaining Proceedings on Consideration
9 pm



Third Reading
10 pm

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Not amended in the Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 10

CONTROL OF LIABILITIES AFFECTING SUCCESSOR AUTHORITIES

'(1) This section applies to any agreement or arrangements entered into after 21st March 1985 under which the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council assumes liabilities not falling to be wholly discharged before the abolition date other than—

(a) an agreement or arrangements requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 89 above;
(b) any transaction requiring his consent under sections 7 to 9 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 or which would require his consent under section 9 of that Act if the consideration exceeded the limit applying under that section;
(c) a contract of employment or a contract for the borrowing of money by the council.

(2) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into any agreement or arrangements to which this section applies; and if at any time since 21st March 1985 and before the passing of this Act any of those councils has done anything that would have been a contravention of the foregoing provisions if they had then been in force the same consequences shall follow as if those provisions had been contravened by that council.
(3) Any consent for the purposes of subsection (2) above may be given either in respect of any particular agreement or arrangements or in respect of agreements or arrangements of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
(4) No agreement or arrangements entered into in contravention of this section shall be enforceable against a successor authority.
(5) If, on an application made by a constituent council, by a local government elector for the area of a constituent council or by a successor authority other than a constituent council, it appears to the High Court that the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council has entered into any agreement or arrangements in contravention of this section, the court may order any person responsible for authorising the agreement or arrangements who is, or was at the time of the conduct in question, a member of the council—

(a) to be disqualified for being a member of that council and to be disqualified for a specified period for being a member of any other local authority; and
(b) to pay to that council (or, in the case of an order made on or after the abolition date, to the appropriate residuary body) a sum not exceeding the cost of discharging such of the liabilities assumed by the council under the agreement or arrangements as have not been, or in the opinion of the court are likely not to be, discharged by that council before that date.

 (6) No order shall be made in respect of any person under subsection (5) above if the court is satisfied that he acted in the belief that the agreement or arrangements had the consent of the Secretary of State and that any conditions attached to the consent had been complied with.
(7) In paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above "local authority" includes the Common Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and in sections 80(1)(e), 86(b) and 87(1)(d) of the principal Act references to Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall include references to that subsection.
(8) In this section "a constituent council" means—



(a) in relation to the Greater London Council, a London borough council or the Common Council;
(b) in relation to a metropolitan county council, the council of any district comprised in the county;

and "a successor authority" means, in relation to the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council, any body or person who by virtue of any provision made by or under this Act will succeed or has succeeded to any liability of that council.
(9) Any statement by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act that he will after the passing of this Act give his consent, or give his consent subject to specified conditions, in respect of any agreement or arrangements to which this section applies shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) above as a consent, or a consent subject to those conditions, given under this section.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: Amendment (a) to new clause 10, in subsection (1), leave out '21st March 1985' and insert
'the passing of this Act'.
Amendment (b) to new clause 10, in subsection (2), leave out from 'applies' to the end of line 19.
Amendment (c) to new clause 10, leave out subsection (9).
New clause 9—Control of disposals and contracts—

'(1) Any disposal made after 21st March 1985 in contravention of section 8 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 shall be void; and section 128(2) of the principal Act (protection of purchases etc.) shall not have effect in relation to the consent required by the said section 8 for any disposal made after that date.
(2) As respects any contract entered into after that date subsection (1) of section 9 of the said Act of 1984 shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to £250,000 and for each reference to £100,000 of a reference to £15,000.
(3) No contract entered into after the said 21st March in contravention of the said section 9 shall be enforceable against a successor authority; and accordingly subsection (5) of that section shall not apply to any contract entered into after that date.
(4) An application under section 10 of the said Act of 1984 (disqualification for membership of local authority) may be made by a successor authority and in that section "local authority" shall include the Common Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(5) Where by reason of a disposal or contract made after the said 21st March in contravention of section 8 or 9 of the said Act of 1984 the High Court has power to make an order under section 10 of that Act in respect of any person it shall also have power to order him to pay to the Greater London Council or, as the case may be, to the metropolitan county council (or, in the case of an order made on or after the abolition date, to the appropriate residuary body) a sum not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a disposal in contravention of section 8, an amount equal to the amount or value of the consideration for the disposal or, if there is no consideration or it is less than the market value of what is disposed of, an amount equal to that market value;
(b) in the case of a contract in contravention of section 9, an amount equal to the amount or value of the consideration in respect of the matters by virtue of which the contract is subject to that section.

(6) No order shall be made in respect of any person under the said section 10 or subsection (5) above if the court is satisfied that he acted in the belief that the disposal or contract had the consent of the Secretary of State and that any conditions attached to the consent had been complied with.
(7) In this section "successor authority" has the same meaning as in section (Control of liabilities affecting successor authorities) above.'.


Amendment (a) to new clause 9, in subsection (1), leave out '21st March 1985' and insert
'the passing of this Act'.
Amendment (b) to new clause 9, in subsection (3), leave out '21st March 1985' and insert
'the passing of this Act'.
Amendment (c) to new clause 9, in subsection (5), leave out '21st March 1985' and insert
'the passing of this Act'.

Mr. Baker: It is with some regret, but also with determination, that I have to seek the agreement today of the House to the introduction of these new temporary controls over the activities of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
Before I explain the nature of the limited new steps that we are proposing to take, I should point out that it might be helpful if hon. Members could bear in mind one or two key features of the situation with which we are now faced.
First, it has been an established principle of all reorganisations of local government hitherto that continuity of activity should be preserved, and the Bill perpetuates that tradition by ensuring that virtually all rights and liabilities of the outgoing authorities will pass to successor authorities. The cardinal principle of our proposals is that decisions as to whether to perpetuate the policies of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will then be taken not by the GLC and the metropolitan counties but by the boroughs and districts at the genuinely local level. Therefore, these measures, together with those that are already in the Bill, will avoid any pre-emption in policy by the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
The new factors in the current reorganisation are not merely the refusal of the outgoing authorities to accept, even at this advanced stage, that abolition will take place, but, beyond that, their expressed determination to frustrate the objective. I see the chairman-elect of the GLC, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), nodding his approval of that course of action. It is to be hoped, in the interests of ratepayers and those whom they purport to serve, that reason will prevail, but the threats of action which are designed to frustrate, even after Royal Assent, the will of Parliament continue unabated. Such threats are not restricted to abolition, but that is not what we are debating today.
Secondly, I must remind hon. Members that when the Government's proposals in the paving Bill to establish interim councils, which would have secured the smooth transition which we are seeking, were rejected in another place, their Lordships nevertheless accepted that in consequence of their rejection certain broad precautionary controls would be desirable. Those broad precautionary controls were over land disposals, major contracts and, in the last year of the council's office, the section 137 "2p rate" expenditure. However, even in the few days between the announcement of those provisions in 1984 and Royal Assent it became clear that the controls might not be sufficient. The unprecedented avalanche of business undertaken in county hall and elsewhere in that period demonstrated starkly the cynicism and opportunism of the councillors concerned towards Parliament's wishes.
Our objective in proposing these new provisions is accordingly quite simple. It is to ensure, so far as we can in the face of obstruction and lack of co-operation, that abolition takes place smoothly on 1 April 1986, with as much continuity as possible. These new and strengthened controls do not even begin to approach a takeover by


Whitehall of the outgoing authorities' functions or decisions in their last year in office. In recognition of their Lordships' wishes, the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils will remain in most respects entirely free to determine how much they should spend, and on what, in their last year in office and to continue with their existing policies until they are abolished, however much the Government and my hon. Friends may disagree with those policies. To the extent that my right hon. Friend will exercise control over specific activities of authorities, he will in effect do so on behalf of the successor authorities—that is, the London boroughs and the district councils outside London.
The House may ask what kind of activities are potentially so damaging to successor authorities and their ratepayers. The paving Act controls already in existence and those in clause 89 of the Bill will be strengthened and extended by these amendments with a view to preventing, where necessary, three broad kinds of obstruction: first, "life after death" arrangements, whereby the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will exploit the provisions in the Bill which will ensure continuity by creating long-term liabilities which the successor authorities will be obliged to meet.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On the "life after death" arrangements, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Greater London Enterprise Board will not have life after death?

Mr. Baker: The Greater London Enterprise Board has asked my right hon. Friend for a grant, under section 137, of about £21 million. There are certain contractual obligations towards the GLEB which the GLC has to meet. This led my right hon. Friend to agree a sum—I draw it from memory — of about £4·9 million, and the Government have approved that expenditure. This of course will be expenditure by the GLC, but we have made it clear that we shall want to monitor how the money is spent. We shall not be prepared to consider further requests from the GLEB, or from the GLC on behalf of the GLEB, unless it is specific about the future of the GLEB after the abolition of the GLC.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Government permit the expenditure of £4·9 million and other moneys by the GLEB there will be a condition that there is to be no enforced trade union membership in any of the organisations which receive the money?

Mr. Baker: I shall have to look into that question. I am not entirely sure what obligations there may be under certain contracts with the Greater London Enterprise Board. However, the GLEB is a private company, limited by guarantee. A great deal of money has been switched to it by the GLC. It has built up a substantial property portfolio as well as giving support to various commercial and industrial undertakings in the Greater London area. Because it is a company limited by guarantee, it cannot be covered by the provisions of the Bill. However, it is absolutely clear that the flow of money to the GLEB from the GLC' will cease on 31 March 1986. We have said that additional money will not be forthcoming until we know exactly what the proposals are for the GLEB's operations after 31 March 1986.

Mr. Jack Straw: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clarify the confusion that exists in my mind. He said that the purpose of these amendments was to implement the Government's general policy of preventing "life after death" arrangements being made by the Greater London council, among others. In those circumstances, how can the GLC make any sensible comments about what is to happen to the Greater London Enterprise Board after the GLC has ceased to exist?

Mr. Baker: I can clarify that matter quite precisely. At a meeting with Mr. Livingstone, I asked him precisely what the proposals were and he said that he was considering them. All I have said is that I should like to know what his proposals are. No doubt they will emerge during the course of the next few weeks and months.
Before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I was giving examples of the activities which we are trying to prevent by means of the measures with which I am dealing. The first example is "life after death" arrangements. The second is "scorched earth" policies, designed to remove from the successor authorities, often at great expense to ratepayers, the property necessary for the proper exercise of functions—that is, asset stripping. The third example is "local government in exile"—arrangements whereby the GLC or the metropolitan county councils could fund sympathetic external bodies to act as agents of the authorities long after abolition. I find it intriguing that Mr. Livingstone should talk of "life after death", thus assuming that death will actually take place and that the abolition Bill will find its way on to the statute book.
There is clear evidence that, while the current leaders of the GLC may be disunited in their tactics over rate capping, they are totally united in their determination to asset — strip the GLC. In a broadcast on 11 March, following the meeting of the GLC which was disastrous for his leadership, Mr. Livingstone said:
We will now try and deliver the party's second policy … that you go for a deficit budget.
The question of course arises: how does one finance this? A council which has 12 months to go could find all sorts of ways to finance overspending, and because it knows that on 31 March 1986 it will come to an end it could do this in a completely irresponsible way.
Secondly, in the very long apologia published fairly extensively last Friday in the New Statesman following his defeat in the GLC, Mr. Livingstone referred to the letter which he had received on 1 October 1984 from Mr. John McDonnell, his deputy, who is the chairman of the finance committee, in which Mr. McDonnell discusses tactics over rate capping. In his letter he says:
In the meantime I want to push as much money out of the building as possible. You should note that this also inevitably ups the stakes on compliance or non-compliance in terms of the level of cuts demanded by the Government.
Mr. McDonnell has certainly lived up to his expressed intention of wanting to push as much money as possible out of the building. Three weeks ago there was a great spending spree at county hall, in which an extra expenditure of £17 million was agreed in a matter of a few hours. There can be no doubt, from what both Mr. Livingstone and Mr. McDonnell have said, that the GLC is determined to spend as much as it possibly can during the course of its last year.
The GLC is not alone in that determination. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is on record as saying in the House:
I assure the Secretary of State that I shall do everything that I can to frustrate what he is doing." —[Official Report, 22 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 920.]
The hon. Gentleman pursued that policy in Committee and I am sure that he will continue to do so during the last 12 months of the life of the GLC.
In November 1984 there were reports in the Evening Standard, The Guardian and The Times of a meeting which Mr. Livingstone addressed at which he set out plan A, which was to defeat the abolition Bill—that plan will not succeed—and Plan B, which was to set up "a Government in exile" to represent the GLC until such time as a Labour Government were elected, pledged to restore it in full. Like many Governments in exile, it will have to wait a very long time to do that. When asked where the money would come from, Mr. Livingstone said that my right hon. Friend was not able to keep an eye on spending projects of less than £100,000, and that funding would have to come out of next year's budget. We must take these measures to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We are aware of the Government's paranoia about the GLC and Mr. Livingstone, but there are six metropolitan counties as well as the GLC. What justification is there for taking such draconian powers over the spending policies of the metropolitan counties when there is no evidence that they intend to take any of the actions which the Minister accuses the GLC of wanting to take? The powers that he is taking over capital expenditure on Merseyside will damage not only the county council but the whole of the private sector and the construction industry.

Mr. Baker: I shall deal later with whether the proposals will damage the private sector. I do not think that they will damage bona fide projects, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) accepts my arguments about the GLC.
Several metropolitan authorities do not have obstruction in mind, but the West Yorkshire county council, when the press notice was issued on Thursday, immediately agreed a set of measures to move substantial funds to a trust. I have no doubt that the council had already prepared to take that action, since it had only to approve the minutes of a meeting to agree that move.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister must be grateful to the GLC for its openness in explaining future plans. It is a pity that the Government were not so open with the House about the 2,000 submissions which they received on "Streamlining the Cities". If the Government were half as open as the GLC, the GLC would be twice as honest.

Mr. Baker: The GLC's openness extends almost to vacuity. I have benefited enormously from the frank statements by Mr. Livingstone, Mr. McDonnell and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. They do not agree with the legislation, but they do not disguise their intentions. They have said that they will take all measures available to oppose and obstruct the legislation and to create financial obligations extending beyond the time when the GLC is abolished.
I have described the main activities which the existing and proposed consent provisions are designed to prevent. These provisions do not in any sense amount to a takeover by Whitehall of the entirety of the authorities' functions. They require the Secretary of State's consent to be obtained to the following: first, the disposal of any interest in land, as already contained in section 8 of the paving Act; and, secondly, major contracts for the purposes specified in section 9 of the paving Act. By virtue of this proposed amendment, consent will be required after 21 March 1985 to any such contracts in excess of £15,000 in value. The paving Act control was £100,000 in value.
We have heard about a surprising number of contracts involving £95,000 or £99,000. One such contract concerned a scandalous advertising campaign. The GLC took whole pages in five or six major national newspapers to advertise a television debate between Mr. Livingstone and myself. I was glad that the GLC found the audience, because it was able to see the devastating defeat of Mr. Livingstone in that debate. I am all in favour of audiences being drummed up for my performances, but £99,000 for a political advertisement is a scandalous waste of ratepayers' money.
The creation, after 21 March 1985, of any liability which is capable of surviving abolition under an agreement or arrangement as set out in the new clause must have the Secretary of State's consent. In all such cases our amendments now provide a sanction of disqualification and surcharge for a failure to obtain consent after 21 March 1985. In addition, from that date disposals of land will be void, and contracts and other liabilities will not be enforceable against a successor authority contrary to its wishes unless such contracts and arrangements have had the approval of the Secretary of State.
We recognise that the Inner London education authority is in a different position from other abolition authorities in relation to our proposals for successor arrangements. Accordingly, we are considering the issue of fairly broad general consents for activities undertaken by the GLC acting as ILEA, subject to our being satisfied that such activity is not obstructive and that no scope is created for the misuse of consents. I have already said that such consents might include commitments to voluntary schools and grants to individual students. We have invited comments on that from ILEA and others. We look forward to receiving their view.

Mr. Marlow: May we have an idea of the scale of money involved and the scale of risk? Can my right hon. Friend remind the House of what the cost of the GLC was in its last Conservative year and what it is now? What is the difference in real terms, and what money is at risk? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will not prevent the GLC spending money on conducting another public opinion poll on whether the citizens of London want to abolish the GLC, because I think that the result would be positive?

Mr. Baker: We are all waiting for the findings of the latest round of opinion polls. Perhaps the chairman-elect of the GLC will tell us the result later. In Committee we managed to tease out of the chairman-elect the fact that opinion polls taken some months ago showed that "74 per cent. say No" was a lie. We were told that the opinion polls had been interrupted by the Westminster council's action against the GLC to stop it spending money on advertising.
The opinion polls which were stifled by the GLC show that between 55 and 65 per cent. are against abolition. Then we heard that the GLC intended to conduct another opinion poll. That contract has been let, so it cannot he affected by these proposals.
The scale of money involved is enormous. In the last three years Mr. Livingstone has increased the GLC's spend from between £450 million and £500 million to nearly £1,000 million. That is an enormous increase. He has doubled the GLC's spend over three years—and doubled the rate precept.
Many of our measures are directed to ensure that the GLC's considerable property assets are not stripped from the GLC and handed to bodies which favour Mr. Livingstone and his friends and their political views. We want to ensure that such assets are transferred to the residuary body on 31 March 1986. If they are disposed of, the proceeds will be returned to the ratepayers, who paid for them originally.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister should not continue to use the phrase "asset stripping". There is an enormous difference between the GLC redistributing wealth round existing local authorities and his hon. Friends who go in for asset stripping on a big scale and transfer their money to offshore funds.

5 pm

Mr. Baker: That is a rather raw nerve. The hon. Gentleman is quite happy to use the words "asset stripping" against my hon. Friends, but assets might well be disposed of in an irregular way, and I could quote various phrases from Mr. Livingstone, who has said that he has it in mind to do so. That is asset stripping. I want to act to protect the interests of the successor authorities and of the ratepayers in London.
I should like to refer to the administrative arrangements. We shall seek to reduce the effects of the new provisions on all concerned by the issue of broad general consents, provided that by doing so no scope is created for activity that is prejudicial to abolition or to successor authorities and their ratepayers. Indeed, I think that many of the metropolitan county councils do not have the motivation that is evident in the GLC, and much of the activities and work of a capital nature which they undertake will be covered by such broad general consents.
Our record in exercising the broader paving Act controls to date is exemplary and, indeed, has been acknowledged as such by some of the authorities concerned. We were told when the measures were introduced that we would be overwhelmed by a mass of administrative detail. In fact, while we have not been willing to issue consents to some proposals pending further justification, by judicious use of general consents we have kept the administrative burdens to manageable levels. Over 4,000 applications have been considered by the Department using a very small nucleus of staff, and of them over 95 per cent. have been dealt with within four weeks, with many urgent requests cleared within 24 hours. We have not yet heard of any case in which the requirement to obtain consent has been demonstrated clearly to have prejudiced innocent third parties.
There are clear reasons and evidence on the record to show why we have had to act in this way. Experience with the paving Bill controls which were announced on 12 July to take effect on Royal Assent clearly demonstrated that

we could not afford to make that same mistake again. In the intervening period between the announcement and the Act coming into effect authorities disposed of land and let contracts worth millions of pounds at enormous expense to ratepayers. However, I wish to make it clear to the House that the new and extended provisions will have no effect on anything done before the date of announcement. That would be quite wrong. We have taken steps to ensure that the authorities were aware of the new proposals on the day that they were announced.

Mr. Chris Smith: I refer to the new limit of £15,000 which the new clause enshrines, and general consents, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Is he prepared to give a general consent to ILEA over the purchase of basic education equipment, because the £15,000 limit will catch virtually every single order of supply for pens, pencils, furniture, blackboards and so on which ILEA undertakes? Obviously it would be nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to have every such contract under his scrutiny.

Mr. Baker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I mentioned ILEA, but I said that we would envisage giving broad general consents to ILEA, or the GLC acting on behalf of ILEA, because that is a continuing authority. It is not the intention to impose such control over the continuing function of a body providing education to inner London.
I was referring to the announcement last Thursday. In normal circumstances it might have been preferable to bring the new provisions into effect on Royal Assent. However, these are not normal circumstances. Despite increasing misgivings, we stayed our hand until the Bill had been accepted on Second Reading and considered in Committee. Now that the House has accepted the reality and the principle of abolition, we can no longer do so. It would be irresponsible to delay further, and to postpone the effect of the provisions until Royal Assent would have led—this is the thrust of the amendments—without any shred of doubt to a final bout of asset stripping the like of which has never been seen before. The successor authorities' cupboard would have been bare and ratepayers would have had to foot the bill. For those reasons we have been forced to seek Parliament's approval to the new provisions taking effect on the day following my announcement to the House on Thursday last. For the same reasons, we cannot accept the Oppositions's amendments.
Those who are proposing to purchase an interest in land from the GLC or metropolitan counties, or to rely on a contract or other enforceable arrangement that extends beyond abolition—that is the important point—must be aware of the impending abolition of the authorities. It is wrong that where consent is not obtained successor authorities and ratepayers should be legally obliged to foot the bill for the misdemeanours of irresponsible councillors. For that reason, and because we consider that disqualification may not prove to be an effective deterrent to unlawful actions in the face of the continuing threats that are being made, we are proposing not only that councillors should face a penalty of surcharge, but that those who collude with them in such actions should not profit by their activities. Accordingly, where the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not obtained, the disposal of land will be invalid and the contract or other arrangement will not be enforceable against successor authorities.
I recognise that there remains a risk that some third or fourth party will be prejudiced. That is why we are taking steps to publicise the effects of the new provisions widely among the professional and specialist groups concerned with property transfer and contracts. The granting of consent to, for example, a long-term contract will minimise the risk that a successor authority might attempt to renege on the arrangement on the ground that it was contrary to its policies. These proposals will therefore help to create certainty for contractors and others in a climate of increasing uncertainty created by the attitude of outgoing authorities.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way again as I have already given way a great deal. No doubt I shall have to reply towards the end of the debate.
I have given the House examples of the obstruction that we are facing. Only last week readers of the Labour Herald were urged to set up an alternative council to organise and propagate the struggle. Setting up an alternative council now, according to the paper, will help to make it clear that only the involvement of the working class and the whole community can achieve a victory.
The action that we are taking today is fully justified in view of the expressed intentions of the leading Labour members of the GLC to subvert the purposes and effects of abolition. They speak of a GLC in exile, of life after death, and of pushing as much money outside the building as possible. All that could involve asset stripping on a huge scale. We are simply not prepared just to sit idly by and let that happen. We have a responsibility to the ratepayers in London and the London boroughs. We shall not let the GLC go on a spree and leave the bill either for the Government or for the London boroughs to pick up from the overturned table.

Mr. Straw: The two new clauses are a constitutional disgrace. They involve retrospective legislation. They give further centralised power over county halls to Marsham street and Whitehall with no justification whatsoever. They are a further illustration of the arrogance and contempt for democracy that has characterised so many of the Government's actions in respect of local authorities and in many other policies.
The Minister of State talked about the need to preserve the continuity of activity by the successor authorities. Of course we have always believed in that as a principle of local government reorganisation, but when the Government set out on the path of reorganisation they made no attempt to build the foundations upon which that continuity could be maintained. There can be no continuity of government without a basic consensus and agreement on the need for reorganisation. This is the only local government reorganisation this century in which the case for reorganisation has been wholly disputed and a matter of partisan disagreement, in which there was no proper public discussion and no inquiry before it became a manifesto commitment, and in which the so-called consultation that was allowed after the manifesto commitment was announced has been treated with utter

disdain. Virtually none of the 2,000 bodies making representations to the Government have had their views taken into account.
At other times the Minister of State has claimed to be a member of the real Conservative party—the moderate Conservative party; the Conservative party that has not been hijacked by Right wingers. He should be ashamed of himself for putting his name to the measures. He says that the new clauses do not begin to amount to a takeover. He knows that that is utter humbug because he then read out a list of activities that would be subject to control by the Government. The disposal of land, major contracts — indeed, any contract in excess of £15,000—and many other matters will be the subject of consent by the Secretary of State. The Minister revealed himself when he said that the whole purpose was to prevent authorities from being obstructive. I must explain to the Minister that democracy involves giving rights not to those with whom one agrees but to those with whom one does not agree. There can be no democracy without that.
What the Minister may interpret as obstruction is, in almost every case, an entirely legitimate action of opposition. The Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC is not yet law. The Minister—like the Prime Minister—may nurse the idea of dispensing with tedious procedures when the views and consent of Members of Parliament have to be taken into account before something becomes law, and instead want a position — which now operates within the Cabinet —whereby the Prime Minister's edict is the rule.
However, under the present constitution, laws are not laws until they are passed by both Houses of Parliament. It is entirely reasonable for hon. Members on both sides of the House and for institutions outside the House to say that they will act according to the present law. It is not for anyone to anticipate the possible outcome of the Bill. After all, this time last year we were told that there was no question but that the GLC and the metropolitan counties would be abolished from 31 March 1985. The Minister may not remember this because he was not then the Secretary of State's minder, but we all remember how utterly confident the Government were that the paving Bill would go through Parliament unamended. After all, they had majorities in both this House and another place. But they were wrong. Whatever arrogant bluster the Minister displays—and I congratulate him on the way in which he has sought to argue the unarguable during the past six months—the reality is that as the debates proceeded in Committee, the majorities there dropped—in no small part thanks to the Minister's advocacy. The Government, with an overall Committee majority of 11, on one occasion could manage only a majority of three on a key matter of principle.
Last December the Government's majority of 140 over all other parties fell to 23 in what was a devastating moral defeat for them. Who knows what will happen in another place? I believe that it will not be happy with the fact that the Bill was guillotined, although the Minister had accepted that there was no filibustering in Committee. The Government will not be happy until London becomes the only capital city in the free world without a proper voice. Nor will they be happy about the fact that because, in a wholly doctrinaire way, the Government have decided to force their views through in an exercise of elective dictatorship there will be enormous disruptions of major services in the metropolitan counties.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman said that the new clauses were an attempt to prevent the GLC and other authorities from performing reasonable and democratic functions. Would it be a reasonable exercise of its power if the GLC pre-financed a GLC in exile?

Mr. Straw: I have seen no proposals for that. When we were discussing placing within the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill a proposal that the Secretary of State should be required to act reasonably in the exercise of his functions, he said that that was wholly unnecessary because
the requirement to exercise statutory powers reasonably is already a well-established principle of the law. There is no need to spell that out in the Bill. That action would only invite spurious legal challenge."—[Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 163.]
The requirement reasonably to exercise statutory powers falls on local authorities just as much as it falls on the Secretary of State. Local authorities are entirely the creatures of statute. The courts have rightly been careful about how local authorities should exercise their powers. Were any local authority—even the GLC—to attempt to set up some institution in exile, which is plainly fanciful and would be outside the spirit and letter of its powers, that would be the subject of challenge in the divisional court, and I have no doubt that that court would find against such a proposal.

Mr. Tony Banks: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. I suggest that the Minister stops reading the Labour Herald; it is not doing a great deal for his blood pressure. He has read a series of articles about future thinking as being the reality of decisions made in the GLC. Does my hon. Friend not agree that at county hall everything must be pushed through with a majority of four —not 140—and that there is no question of the GLC, either now or in future, acting illegally? It cannot do so.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The GLC's track record on observing the law is exemplary, and a great deal better than that of the Secretary of State who has two previous convictions. One was for breaking the law on the Greater London development plan and the other was for acting unlawfully in respect of Lambeth and Lewisham area health authority. We do not need any lectures from the Secretary of State about the need to observe the law.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend address himself to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), which was not answered by the Minister, although he promised him an answer? My hon. Friend has concentrated on answering charges levelled against the GLC, and that is right and proper. He has said nothing about the metropolitan county councils because no charges have been made against them. Does he agree that it is a gross contempt for the Minister to include the Greater Manchester council and others in the new clause without any attempt to justify that action?

Mr. Straw: There is not a shred of justification for including the metropolitan counties in this move. It is possible that one or two people on the GLC said things in their anger that they knew would be translated into action. Indeed, that is the Minister's prima facie evidence. But

that does not apply to the metropolitan counties, so there is no justification for the Minister attempting to include them in the proposals.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause is an attempt to circumvent the decisions of another place when it voted out proposals in the paving Bill? The Government are trying to reintroduce paving Bill proposals that the other place rejected and to take complete control of the metropolitan counties and the GLC before the abolition Bill is on the statute book.

Mr. Straw: As usual, my hon. Friend steals my best line. That was exactly what I had written in my notes and what I was about to say. It is a good point. The Secretary of State, much to his chagrin, last year suffered a major reverse in another place. While the Government have had to put up with that defeat, they have never accepted the principle of it. The Minister was uncharacteristically ungenerous when he spoke of that defeat. He said that the other place had rejected the proposals for interim councils to provide for a smooth transition to the new councils. The Government have never accepted the principle and, having failed to take control and change the political control of these authorities by the front door, they are now attempting to take control by the back door.
When I began I said that what Ministers fail to appreciate is that democracy is about giving rights to people with whom one profoundly disagrees. The Government now show little or no respect for the will of local electorates. These councils still have a mandate to act. They were democratically elected. We wished their mandate to be renewed this May. The Government have denied them that mandate, but they continue to have the consent of the people who elected them to act reasonably, subject to the law and supervision of the courts. The Government are denying them that right to speak on behalf of their electorate. We understand why they are doing that.
The Secretary of State revealed himself about a year ago when he was asked why he did not have faith in the local electorates to hold their local councils in check. "Ah", he said, "we've tried that, but it's not working very well". It was working pretty badly this time last year but, by God, the local democratic process is working even worse now because throughout the country the Conservative party is suffering the most significant political defeats that it has suffered for 10 years. The Conservatives have been running centralised control of local government in Scotland for four years. The result is that there is utter chaos in local government, so much so that the Prime Minister is calling a panic meeting this Sunday to which she has summoned the English Minister with responsibility for local government to try to sort out the mess. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us how it will go down in Scotland when a Sassenach has to move in to sort out its rates mess. So much chaos has been caused there that the Conservatives have even lost a seat in Troon. Troon is golfing country, solid Conservative country, and the Conservatives lost the seat to Labour.
I am afraid to say that the disease of democracy has come south because in the last 23 council by-elections, held in February, in which there were three-cornered contests—and I will happily give the results of the two-cornered contests, because they were even worse for the Conservatives—the Conservative vote has completely slumped. I will give the results: Conservative, 25·1 per


cent., alliance, 32·9 per cent. and Labour 40·4 per cent. In those contests where there were two two-cornered fights, the results were even worse: Conservative, 23·2 per cent., Liberal/SDP, 30 per cent. and Labour 42·4 per cent. With every turn of the centralised screw, the Government lose support not only in our areas but also in theirs.
When the Minister of State replies to the debate, will he say why he decided upon this ludicrously small sum of £15,000? Last year the Secretary of State, in what was an unexceptionable statement as far as it went, said:
The level at which to pitch the threshold … must be a matter of judgment. We want it to be sufficiently high to eliminate the need to refer many small contracts to the Government."—[Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 167.]
We did not agree with what he was saying, but at least the £100,000 figure was relatively high. What is the case for including contracts of £15,000? The Minister has to spell out why such a tiny sum was seized upon.
The last point that I wish to raise concerns retrospection. The two new clauses are retrospective in effect. They cannot become law at least until June or July, but they take effect as from two weeks ago. We do not say, and nobody says, that all retrospective legislation is bad.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Most of it is.

Mr. Straw: Indeed, most of it is, and that was my next line. We accept that tax changes have to come into effect on the day on which they are announced. We also accept, as the House accepts, that there is no objection to retrospective legislation which makes lawful that which has previously been unlawful—in other words, improves the rights of the citizens whom we represent. But the House has always, and rightly, thoroughly opposed legislation which is retrospective in effect and which makes unlawful that which was previously lawful.
Indeed, it is now enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights that
No-one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
We are not making criminal law, but, by God, the clauses that the Minister of State is proposing are criminal in their effect. Indeed, the power to fine and to penalise councillors and former councillors is unlimited: it is as great as that possessed by any criminal court, and as dire in its effects.
I quote not only the European Convention on Human Rights on the effects of retrospective legislation, but a former Back Bencher speaking in the debate on the War Damage Bill. He said:
I feel proud to be able to take part in this debate, as I feel that this is the House of Commons at its best, challenging the power of the Executive, which has for long been our traditional role. That is what we are here for, and one could not have a better battleground than this Bill. I regard this as a very nasty little Bill … It was conceived, if I may say so, in dishonour and it ought to have been strangled at birth. I hope that this evening we will strangle it.
He continued:
I think that it was Disraeli who said that nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right. If we throw out this Bill tonight I can imagine that wily old Jew looking out of his window in Heaven with pleasure and with approval in his eyes, smiling down on us and saying 'Well done'."—[Official Report, 3 February 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1178–84.]

He finished his set of speeches on the offence of retrospective legislation which made unlawful that which was previously lawful by saying:
If it is still legitimate to quote Virgil in this House, facilis descensus Averni which can be roughly, but inaccurately, translated as 'Retrospective legislation is a damned slippery slope'. Let the House dig its heels in and say that it will have no more of it."—[Official Report, 2 March 1965: Vol. 707, c. 1264.]
Those were the fine words of the then hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, now the Secretary of State for the Environment. He was right then. We are right now. I urge the House to throw out the clauses.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Blackburn, (Mr. Straw) sought to draw the attention of the other place to the majorities that the Bill was attracting in its passage through the House. I think that he sought to draw the attention of the other place to the majorities that we had earlier in Committee of the whole House and then later in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman I am sure will agree with me that, as time goes on and as the arguments are rehearsed and lobbyists and outside interests get involved, so hon. Members become more aware of the real issues involved in the Bill.
I am sure that I will get his agreement when I suggest that he takes account of the majority that the Government will secure for their amendments today and tomorrow, rushes up to the other end of the building, goes to see all his friends in the other place and tells them precisely what has happened here today and what will happen here tomorrow because I have no doubt that they will be very interested.

Mr. Tony Banks: They can read.

Mr. Marlow: Yes, I know that they can read, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn knows that. Nevertheless, he has sought to draw this point to their attention. I am sure that he will be only too pleased to draw the additional point that I am making to their attention as well.
The hon. Gentleman brought before the House the novel Labour party contention that democracy is about giving power to those with whom one profoundly disagrees. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman fighting his way to the Dispatch Box and television screen during the coal dispute to say that there should be a ballot. Nor do I recall him fighting his way to the Dispatch Box to make strong and persistent speeches against the violence that was being applied by one section of Mr. Scargill's supporters against those miners who wished to work. That is a novel creed and I am sure that we all welcome it.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not an old and honourable creed that the Conservative party is the true guardian of the constitution? Why allow the hon. Member for Blackburn, with the shabby record to which my hon. Friend has just referred, to steal the clothes of the Tory party?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Blackburn has not stolen the clothes of the Conservative party; he has walked past a hook and put them on and as he walks out of the door he will hang them up again.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the case for the reorganisation in which we are now involved. Part of the case for the reorganisation is that it was in our manifesto. The hon. Gentleman referred to that. He is concerned


about many of the things being done at the moment and he says that the authorities should be allowed to continue those policies because they were in their manifestos.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman should discuss the new clause that is before the House and not make a speech such as he would make on Second Reading.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise if I was out of order, but I was only replying to the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Where, in the Conservative manifesto, was there a commitment to take control of existing democratically elected councils to the extent of requiring the Secretary of State's approval for any contract over £15,000 in advance of abolition?

Mr. Marlow: I shall come to that later. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall be happy to answer that point and I intend to do so.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked why we are concerned to introduce the new clause. He will be aware that there has been a sea of change in local government. There was a time when local authorities were there to provide services for the people who elected them. From time to time the political control of local authorities would change, but there was a basic consensus about the provision of services. There might have been a slight difference between a Labour and Conservative local authority, but there was a consensus about the provision of services. Recently, sadly, there has been a great, grave and damaging change.
Some local authorities and some parties in local authority areas have looked upon victory in local government as an opportunity for political posturing, for using ratepayers' money to provide jobs for their own people, political groupings and activists, and for providing organisations with funds for minority interests, which the vast majority of people who voted in the local election were not in favour of.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said that the GLC is likely to spend £900 million this year. Three years ago it spent some £450 million. Allow for inflation an increased cost each year of £50 million, and against the £450 million that London spent three years ago, perhaps, in exceptional circumstances, one could justify an expenditure of £600 million for the provision of adequate services. But no, the GLC seeks to spend £900 million. That leaves £300 million of ratepayers' money available for expenditure on mean, obscure and extravagant little schemes, of which the Labour party in London seems to be so much in favour.
Of course my right hon. Friend must bring the Bill before the House—[Interruption.] I think that I heard the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) say that there has been an election. I come back to his earlier point.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He has got it wrong.

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his first point, I might have a chance to listen to his second point.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was about democracy. He asked whether it was in the Conservative party's manifesto that we intended to control these relatively small amounts of money. At the time of the manifesto some of

the appalling consequences of the extravagance of the GLC, even in our wildest nightmares, could not have been thought of. The need is there and action must be taken.
I think that the hon. Gentleman used the words "manifesto", "democracy" and "mandate". The GLC's mandate ends in a month's time. Therefore, is it right that it should continue to spend money in such a political way?

Mr. Allan Roberts: Surely the whole point is that if the Government had not intervened there would have been an election in May and the so-called hard-pressed ratepayers, the electorates of Greater London, Merseyside and elsewhere, could have had their democratic say about the issues that the hon. Gentleman is now raising. The Government have cancelled the elections because the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the GLC's expenditure would not have been shared by the electorate and Labour would have won the election.

Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, since the Government came to power it has been the intention to abolish one layer of local government to bring local government closer to the people and to cut the cost of it to the people. It has taken just over three years to do so—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Marlow: If I keep giving way, the hon. Gentleman will not have time to speak.
There is obviously a transition period. During that time, is there any sense in allowing those whose mandate has expired to continue, given Mr. Livingstone's commitment and that of the Lord Mayor elect to spend money in ways which I am sure the House would not support?

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Bill is about getting rid of one tier of local government and taking it closer to the people, why not abolish the shire counties?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman knows that the nature of the shire counties and the districts within them is completely different from the metropolitan authorities. He will also be aware that the shire counties have a much longer history and are much more a part of our national life.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is once again reverting to a Second Reading speech and is not referring to the new clause. I appreciate that my hon. Friend is late in coming into the debate and has not been involved before. I know that he has been a member of the Committee, but he has not been substantially involved in earlier discussions. Therefore, would it be in order to remind my hon. Friend that he should stick to the new clause or conclude his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that no hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded to stick to the new clause.

Mr. Marlow: As far as I can remember, over the last four or five minutes I have been responding to interventions from Opposition Members. I am sure that the interventions were in order and that my replies have therefore also been in order.
My right hon. Friend is embarking upon a vital and valid task. If I may give him one piece of advice, I hope that he will not be unduly modest in his application of the new clause.

Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the appalling pressure of time, I propose to concentrate on the issues involved in the new clauses. I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the unattractive nature of these measures. They are another example of something of which we have had far too much in recent years—enabling legislation for the Secretary of State. The new clauses enable the Secretary of State to forbid spending and to prohibit transactions which are in themselves perfectly legal but of which he may disapprove on a variety of grounds.
The Minister for Local Government may be able to justify to himself what is being done on the ground of what he regards as a special problem, but he will find it difficult to justify the measures on a wider basis.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, the timing of the coming into effect of the new clauses assumes that the Bill will go through Parliament in its present form and that the remaining stages of the parliamentary process will be a rubber stamp operation. I find that assumption unappealing.
How effective will such financial control be? Subsection (2) of the new clause 9 reduces to £15,000 the limit on the size of the contracts that the GLC or the metropolitan councils may enter into without the Secretary of State's permission. That is an incredibly small figure. The subsection represents a considerable strengthening of the stranglehold created by the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act.
Will such control be effective? Under section 137 of the paving Act the Secretary of State was given responsibility for approving all grants by the GLC. In the event, the Secretary of State has been forced to give a blanket general approval to all grants under the sum of £15,000. Interestingly, among those grants are many to which Ministers and Conservative Members have taken considerable exception.
The grants approved by the Secretary of State under his blanket approach include, for example, a grant to Chile Democratico GB, which will receive £6,473 in the coming financial year. Gay Legal Advice will receive about £3,300. The Abyssinian Society — apparently a West Indian social club—receives £9,156, with the Secretary of State's approval.
What is perhaps most surprising is that the present Secretary of State should have given approval to the Jewish Socialist Group, which is to receive £8,050 in the coming year. The London Gay Campaign Group is to receive £10,576. Hall Carpenter Memorial Archives Ltd —apparently a collection of records about lesbians and gay men—is to receive almost £15,000.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Cartwright: We are told that the draconian measures in the new clauses are necessary to stop the spending that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Tory Benches regard as irresponsible, unreasonable and against the ratepayers' interests. In fact, however, much of the spending to which hon. Gentlemen object is receiving the approval of the Secretary of State because of the ineffectiveness of such bureaucratic control.

Mr. Tony Banks: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those grants have been passed not because of the

ineffectiveness of the controls operated by the Department of the Environment, but because they are for perfectly laudable and admirable organisations. When the Secretary of State sees where the grants are going, he entirely agrees with the GLC and approves them. We should not inflame the prejudice and bigotry of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Cartwright: I know that it is nearly Easter, but if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) believes that, he must believe in the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy, too.
As the chairman-elect of the GLC knows, grants of less than £15,000 are given blanket approval because the civil servants are so bogged down with plodding through miles and miles of perfectly reasonable and praiseworthy larger contracts that they do not have time to scrutinise the smaller ones, which include many of the grants to which the Conservatives object.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman points out the irony of the situation. When the Secretary of State took powers to approve or disapprove of grants, he undertook to disapprove not of who was to receive the grants, but only whether they were illegal. He did so despite the prejudiced protestations of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I congratulate the Secretary of State on sticking to his undertaking, giving grants to many worthy organisations and refusing to accept the prejudiced views of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Cartwright: An interesting coalition is being formed on this issue.
The controls that would operate under the new clauses would not affect spending of the type to which Conservative Members are so violently opposed. They are a constitutional absurdity and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suggest, on the basis of the examples that I have given, that they will be ineffective, too. We shall certainly vote against them today.

Mr. Cormack: When the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) read out his somewhat bizarre list, I was tempted to quote another Latin tag—de gustibus non est disputandum. There is certainly no accounting for the taste of my right hon. Friend if he has indulged in such extraordinary beneficence.
We are currently debating a very important and central principle. This seems to be the latest chapter in a sorry saga. I have become increasingly depressed as I have watched the Government fall deeper and deeper into the morass during the passage of the Bill. It gives me no pleasure to say that. I have always had the highest regard for my right hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and the Secretary of State, but they have done the Tory party no service by championing this measure.
I fully understand the sense of annoyance, aggravation and anger provoked by some of the stranger activities of councils throughout the land. However, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reminded us, those councils were democratically elected. Uncomfortable, inconvenient and thoroughly objectionable as we may find some of their more profligate decisions, we must accept the fact that they were democratically elected.
I do not like the measures that we are discussing now any more than I like the general premise on which the Bill is built. I have made my opposition to the Bill reasonably plain on a number of occasions.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend has correctly described the constitutional slippery slope on which the Government have recklessly embarked in bringing forward the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that what makes the situation even worse is the fact that the objectionable spending—the central point of the original initiative—amounts at most to 5 per cent. of the total GLC budget, or the same proportion as when the GLC was under Conservative control?

Mr. Cormack: That is a good point. I am worried because I can foresee the Bill becoming the Tory party's devolution, and I do not want that to happen. I agree that only a small percentage of expenditure is involved. This is a classic case of a constitutional sledgehammer being used to crack a few nuts.
My objection to new clause 10, like my objection to the Bill, is based on what I consider to be several impeccable Tory grounds. The Conservative party has always, and with full justice, been able to demonstrate that it is a champion of the constitution. The constitution is in need of championing at the moment because, although they might not be in the Chamber, there are many on the militant Left of the Labour party who would bring down the whole edifice that sustains our freedom to achieve their political objectives. To steal even the smallest paragraph from the smallest page of that book is an extremely dangerous thing for the Conservative party to do.
The Conservative party has always eschewed centralism and repudiated, when possible, the doctrine immortalised in the words that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. However, time and again in this Parliament and in the previous one, Ministers have endorsed that gentleman in Whitehall knows best doctrine. I have found it exceptionally painful to listen to that endorsement as it smacks of an arrogant attitude towards power, which is not in the true Tory tradition. When in power, even with a substantial majority, and especially when elected with a minority vote in the country, we must behave with humility and understanding such as is not always present in doctrines enunciated from the Dispatch Box.
As to new clause 10, I ask my robust and hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to ponder longer than perhaps he has hitherto, as it is an anticipation of the will of Parliament. We have a bicameral legislature and the Bill has not even left the Commons. Nevertheless, the new clause anticipates that Parliament will pass the Bill without amendment. Perhaps it will. I hope that it will not and that the Lords will exercise their discretion firmly and properly, as they did with the paving legislation. If they do, my hon. Friend will feel a little dismayed. He can avoid that feeling by not supporting new clause 10. It makes me exceptionally sad that a man of his taste, discernment and understanding of the Tory philosophy should allow himself to be party to a measure that is inimical to true Toryism as I understand it and as I thought he understood it.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who we all know is a great constitutionalist, for giving way. He said that the authorities with which we might have disagreements have a mandate and are therefore entitled

—indeed, are duty bound — to carry through their mandate although it is about to expire. My hon. Friend will know that this matter was a central part of the Conservative party manifesto on which we fought the 1983 general election. As my hon. Friend is an hon. Friend, perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to tell the House that he told the electorate that he opposed such a proposal during the election campaign, because I am sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman pursues that intervention he will be getting away from the new clause under consideration.

Mr. Cormack: Perhaps you will allow me to respond briefly to my hon. Friend's intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made it plain, as I did just before Christmas, that my election address did not mention this wretched business at all. I believe that we are elected individually by our constituents. When questioned at election meetings I made my views quite plain. I said that there was a need for reform in London but there was also a need for an elected body to oversee the affairs of this great capital city. I am much more in sympathy with the Government's views about the metropolitan county councils.
When, more than ever in its history, the constitution needs a true and doughty guardian, it is extremely dangerous for a party which can truly claim to be its guardian to be tempted by the deviationist tactics of reprehensible local authorities into endorsing a principle that is utterly unconservative, non-Tory and unconstitutional.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: As is usual, the evidence presented by the Minister today was insubstantial and prejudiced. Yet again, his argument related almost entirely to the GLC.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he made his stance on the GLC quite clear in his election campaign. I accept what he says, but he said that he did not make much of an argument about the metropolitan counties. I suspect that the metropolitan counties have got caught up in the coat tails of the GLC and the prejudice in some sections of the Conservative party against the GLC, especially a Labour-controlled GLC. Time and again in Committee the Government have had an opportunity to make a case against the metropolitan counties, but none has been made, because there is none. New clause 10 is another sign that the Government do not have a case to make against them.
The new clause implies criticism of how councillors will behave, so it is incumbent upon the Minister to make clear his accusations against the metropolitan councils. If he has none, he should make that clear, and make it clear that he is not criticising councils or councillors.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) read out a list of organisations and continued, as it is a populist thing to do, to draw certain conclusions and say that the Secretary of State had approved of those organisations and allowed grants to be made to them. The real issue is not whether the Secretary of State approves of those organisations, but whether he should have the power to make a judgment about them. Surely that power should reside not in Whitehall or in the Department of the Environment, but with elected councillors, who are sensitive to local needs.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) displayed his prejudices with great vigour in Committee, and he did so again today, although it was not one of his most prejudiced performances. He should think quietly about the principles that he is supporting. He may not agree with certain organisations, and he may want the Secretary of State to say, "No grants or payments to those organisations." However, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South has pointed out, there is a real danger in that view, because there could well be a change in political power, as a result of which a different Secretary of State might take a totally different decision.
6 pm
The essence of the argument against this legislation is that it makes a judgment in anticipation of what this Chamber and the other Chamber will do. That is a dangerous position for this or any subsequent Government to find themselves in in their relations with local government as well as in a general political sense.
Conservative Members should take a step back and think about the more general arguments rather than their own positions of prejudice in relation to particular policies. This is an important new clause, not for what it does, but for what it stands for. Those hon. Members who vote against it will support the constitution and the basic principles which have been essential to democratic politics.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I understand the stance which the Opposition have adopted, because they want to retain their empire after the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They also want to have their interests protected. I fully understand their argument that they should be able to transfer large sums of money from democratically elected bodies to bodies which are answerable to no one except the Labour party and its supporters.
Conservative Members want to see abolition. It is worth pointing out that at the last general election Conservative Members in London were specifically elected on a manifesto which proposed the abolition of the GLC. A majority of Conservative Members in London were elected on that manifesto. In my own constituency, it has been proved that that is what my constituents want.
The House has already debated the paving Act. This Bill has received a Second Reading and has gone through Standing Committee. The views of the House are clear, and I hope that the other place takes careful note of those views and of the fact that the Bill was not substantially changed in Committee.
These new clauses are necessary. It is necessary that the Secretary of State should have sanctions over these contracts if we are to avoid the problem of asset stripping in London and the metropolitan counties. It may be that the GLC and the metropolitan counties will behave according to the will of Parliament and recognise that it would be wrong to act prematurely when Parliament's will is already known. However, we have every reason to believe that these councils will not hold fire and that they will try to pre-empt what the House intends.
The GLC is particularly opposed to the Bill. That is its right. The Labour party is in control at county hall and believes that it has a mandate to oppose the legislation. No Conservative Member would question the Labour party's

right to do that, although we may question its reasons for doing so. However, obstructing the will of Parliament is another matter.

Mr. Dykes: How does my hon. Friend feel about the fact that only two Conservatives at county hall agree with this proposal, whereas the rest are dead against it?

Mr. Terry Dicks: The rest are incompetent.

Dr. Twinn: I shall not be tempted by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who suggests that my colleagues at county hall are incompetent. I would merely point out that at the general election this was a major issue in London, and it received wide support both in London and the metropolitan counties. My Conservative colleagues on the GLC should consider what the electors have said since they were elected.
We have every reason to believe that the GLC will obstruct Parliament. It is already obstructing the will of Parliament by not responding to requests for information under the paving Act. My own authority in Enfield has requested information on various functions, including waste disposal, which I am sure we shall discuss later. That information has been denied. The London borough of Enfield is unable to discover details of a function which it wishes to take over after abolition.
Far from being sinister, the new clauses are necessary if ratepayers are to be protected. We must act now and make provision to protect the ratepayers of the London area.
The GLC is keen to spend a lot of money. Its rates proposals for this year were very high indeed, and would have been higher had the Labour party not been split. Had Labour's budget proposals gone through, the ratepayers of London would have paid through the nose. As it is, they are already paying substantial sums for the new rate precept.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman must surely know that the maximum precept which could have been made at county hall was the legal one set by the Secretary of State, and no other.

Dr. Twinn: That is correct, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there was considerable discussion among the Labour group on the GLC about whether it would set a higher precept or none at all. That would have left the authority with no money, and it would have become illegal. Although the hon. Gentleman's point is correct, behind it is hidden a devious approach to rate setting by the GLC.
We had to step in to protect London's ratepayers from paying even more. We must protect their assets. After all, ratepayers' money was responsible for the accumulation of assets in the first place, and it is wrong that these assets should now be transferred to other bodies which are not accountable to the ratepayers. I welcome the new clauses and hope that the whole House will support them.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is quite clear that the GLC still has the power to frighten the Government to death. The Prime Minister sits in her bunker reading copies of the Daily Mail and foaming at the mouth, and the Minister for Local Government reads an article by Ken Livingstone in Labour Herald, rushes to the House and tables a new clause.
New clauses 9 and 10 are retrospective in their intent and draconian in their aims. Why should the GLC co-operate with a measure based on party political spite which has not yet reached the statute book? At no stage has the GLC acted illegally. It has been dragged through the courts more times than I care to recollect. The courts are open to any Conservative Member or ratepayer to challenge any action by the GLC, yet not one Conservative Member can claim that the GLC has acted illegally.
The Minister has introduced a new clause based on a series of articles and political statements by members of the GLC, but not on any declared policy of the GLC. I agree that the metropolitan county councils have been dragged into this because of the paranoia of the Prime Minister and various Conservative Members over the GLC and activities at county hall.
It is amazing that Conservative Members who prate about democracy and freedom can support this sort of retrospective legislation, which is what new clauses 9 and 10 are all about.
We have got used to Ministers coming to the House to legalise their own illegalities. No one at county hall or in the metropolitan councils has broken the law, but with the health authority cuts the Secretary of State for the Environment broke his own law and had to bring in retrospective legislation. The Secretary of State for Transport was caught with his fingers in the till and was found by a high court judge to have acted improperly, so he used this place to legalise his illegality. We do not need lectures from Conservatives about obeying the law when we see so many law breakers looking at us across the Dispatch Box. Ministers have the great advantage that with the elected tyranny that they operate they can push through whatever laws they need to legalise their actions.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No, the hon. Gentleman has had a good crack of the whip. I have only a couple of minutes.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Mr. Marlow: I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has now given way. I ask him to make rather improbable use of his imagination. If he were a Minister in a Labour Government and a Conservative authority had a vast amount of money in a slush fund which it intended to apply for the perpetuation of Conservative interests, what action would he take?

Mr. Banks: I have never regarded the hon. Gentleman as one of the more imaginative Members of the House. The most improbable aspect of his flight of fancy is not the prospect of a Labour Government but the idea of my being a Minister. I find that unimaginable. However, I am sure that if those circumstances arose recourse could be had to the courts. That is precisely my point. If the GLC or any authority is acting illegally, the courts can be used. But the GLC and the metropolitan authorities have never acted illegally, nor could they do so, so the new clause is unnecessary.
I wish to put some specific questions to the Minister. Why is the figure £15,000? Does the Minister think that that will stop the GLC's advertising campaign? If so, I have some bad news for him. It is too late. That has

already been assured. All that he will achieve is to overload his already overworked Department. Perhaps he will tell us how many additional civil servants he will need to deal with all these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: rose—

Mr. Banks: I have one more question and then the Minister can come in. Does he know how many transactions the GLC is involved in with contracts of £15,000 or more?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman said that he had good news for the House—

Mr. Banks: No, it is bad news for the Government.

Mr. Baker: It is bad news for the ratepayers of London. He said that the GLC had already approved its expenditure on propaganda in anticipation of these moves. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much expenditure has been approved?

Mr. Banks: Yes. I believe that something over £1 million is to be spent in the next 12 months informing Londoners of the undemocratic nature of the Government's proposals. That is not propaganda. It is information. We cannot get information out of the Government and we certainly shall not get it from the Tory newspapers. It is therefore incumbent on the GLC, which is democratically elected and accountable to the ratepayers of London, to explain to Londoners why local democracy and services are under so much threat from the Government's actions.
I have a couple more questions for the Minister. I hope that he will tell us how many civil servants he will need to take on and how many contracts above £15,000 he thinks that the GLC is involved in. In addition, perhaps he will tell us when and how the GLC was informed about the proposed clause. Was a messenger sent over from the Department of the Environment with a letter stuck in a twig? The clause became operable at midnight on Thursday, but the GLC did not know about it until late on Friday. In an organisation the size of the GLC and ILEA, with an annual turnover of about £3,000 million, it is highly likely that contracts of more than £15,000 were agreed. That is the invidious nature of the new clause.
6.15 pm
The Government's proposals will make it impossible for the GLC to conduct its business properly. The purpose of new clauses 9 and 10 is to get around the amendments passed by the House of Lords. The aim is to get around the existing legislation. Once again, it is clear that the Government have no great respect for the law or for Parliament, which they use and manipulate to serve their own party political interests. That is what it is all about, and that is what new clauses 9 and 10 are all about.

Mr. Maples: The powers sought by the Government are undoubtedly unusual, but we are dealing with very unusual circumstances. The subject of abuse of democracy and democratic rights has been much paraded in the debate, but the GLC itself is responsible for considerable abuses. We have just heard of one from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who said that a contract had been let to beat the deadline. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and others make much of the constitutional aspect, but much depends on people behaving reasonably. The GLC does not behave reasonably—

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Maples: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to get a little further. Some of my hon. Friends seem not to realise what we are up against. The GLC has no regard for constitutional niceties. There have been appalling misuses of public money. Sometimes I think that those of my hon. Friends who oppose the Government's proposals simply do not appreciate what we are dealing with.
I should like to refer to just a few of the organisations which have received money from the GLC. I do not intend to tell horror stories about gay amusement centres and the like. I am referring to activities with constitutional implications. A great many of the GLC's activities are overtly party political, and public money is overtly used to finance party political activities.
The Local Government Campaign Unit—a euphemism for an organisation whose sole purpose is to put out anti-Government propaganda about local government legislation—has a staff of 10 and is funded partly by the GLC. The GLC has spent £50,000 on that. It is a Labour party political organisation paid for, among others, by the ratepayers of London. Another organisation, Capital, is run by a former Labour Member of Parliament and funded by the GLC. Its sole activity is to tell lies about London Regional Transport. That, too, is an overtly party political activity. Yet another organisation, Traffic, is funded largely by the GLC—to the tune of about £260,000 in the past few months. That organisation is paid to tell lies about the proposals for London's roads. As the south circular runs through my constituency, I have to deal with those lies almost every day.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West cannot, even in his wildest, most fantastical moments, believe that a £10 million advertising campaign is really informing the ratepayers of London. That is certainly not what the court concluded in the case of ILEA, which involved much the same kind of propaganda. A total of £10 million is a sizeable sum of money. The hon. Member talks about £1 million as though it were small change. That is how the GLC regards London ratepayers' money. That is not respect for constitutional niceties.
I take just one more example. The proposed nuclear power plant at Sizewell has nothing whatever to do with London, but one of the groups opposing it was funded largely by the GLC. Is that a constitutional use of London ratepayers' money?
One of the activities which the GLC got up to in its opposition to the Bill was to encourage its suppliers to write to their Members of Parliament, almost threatening to withdraw their contracts if they did not support the GLC line. [Interruption.] We have seen the letters that went round.
Many of my hon. Friends who oppose the Government do not understand what we are up against. They think that we are dealing with an old style Labour council which respects the same constitutional conventions and niceties as we do. It does not. The ruling group on the GLC is interested, not in the government of London, but in political power. Chaos and propaganda are political tools in their political armoury.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Maples: I shall give way in one moment. It is not reasonable to ask my right hon. Friend to fight this battle with one hand tied behind his back.

Mr. Dykes: Conservative Members are specially worried about the wrong use of money by the present leaders of the GLC. Even £1 million is only 0·1 per cent. of its total budget. That is not a reason for the Government recklessly to embark on a proposal to abolish the GLC. It is an argument to take additional powers in local government legislation. We established the GLC 20 years ago to curb those excessive spending activities. Why does my hon. Friend not give a correct and balanced picture?

Mr. Maples: I was not dealing with the general abolition argument. That has been debated at length. The clauses are designed for a specific circumstance — to protect the lengthy series of abuses which have occurred, but perhaps my hon. Friend is not interested in that. He should reflect on the fact that chaos and propaganda are simply political tools in the GLC's armoury. To ask my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to see this element of Government policy through without these clauses is asking them to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It is like going into the boxing ring wearing gloves and saying, "This is a Queensberry rules fight," when the other fellow is wearing knuckledusters and has a couple of thugs round the back of his opponent's corner.
The GLC could strip, and has stripped, assets. It has sold assets at substantial discounts to friendly local borough authorities in London. It would do so on a massive scale, and would almost certainly fund itself in exile. It will almost certainly set up a GLC in exile. If it could, it would finance the future of its propaganda battle and create as much chaos as possible in London. That is its objective in this whole sorry saga. If anything is unconstitutional, that is.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) seems to wish to apply one set of rules to local government and another to central Government. They are both, by their nature, about the exercise of power and both can be governed by rules. As interventions during his speech made clear, the place for setting down general rules for local government is not at this stage in the Bill.
The two new clauses are evidence of the Government's muddle. When we began this series of pieces of legislation, with the famous line in the general election manifesto that the authorities would be abolished, we were given a Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. There were no clauses like these clauses in that Bill. The Bill went to the other place, returned, and in July last year, at short notice, two clauses like these clauses were inserted into that measure. The Secretary of State was asked to raise the limits for contracts to £1,000,000 or £500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that the selected figures were not plucked from the air, that the Government fixed those levels as a matter of judgment, and that they wanted them to be sufficiently high to eliminate the need to refer small contracts to the Government, but not so high that many substantial contracts were passed.
At that time the Government could, if they had wished, have dealt with small contracts. They knew with whom they were dealing and what the evidence was, but they did not take any action. They did not do that then, nor when this Bill was introduced. Some clauses in the Bill deal with matters such as those with which we are dealing today. Clause 89 is an obvious example. However, the Government did not choose to intervene. At the last


moment, in the last days of a curtailed debate—perhaps the shortest Report stage of any Local Government Bill which has passed through the House this century—the Government tabled two new clauses. They could have foreseen that all the time. They seek to insert these two new clauses now because of their rush and misjudgment in the first place.
My second objection is that through the new clauses the Government seek to control what is handed on to successor authorities. There are two constitutional objections to that. The first is that many of the successor authorities are far less democratic than the authorities which they are intent on curbing — elected councils. Second, and more important, it is a novel proposition of constitutional government that one should be able to intervene in the right of successors to do what they like. Every day Governments provide for things that will affect their successors. The Budget is an example of that. To suggest that one should not be able to plan ahead is ludicrous.
My third objection is that the Government assume that no one has heard of their proposal to abolish the GLC. They are laying down laws that will govern the contracts that are entered into, when anyone in his right mind, negotiating with the GLC, is aware of the legal position and can take advice on how to deal with the situation. If the Government think that their proposals have not been noticed they are deceiving themselves, and it contradicts all that they have said in the past.
My fourth objection is over the delay. Although it may be relatively small, every time a contrdct, proposed sale or liability is entered into, right down to the ludicrously low level of £15,000, it must be vetted by a Government Department. That will produce further delay before action can happen, and a further element of uncertainty. That is not in the interests of efficient government, but is a consequence of the Government trying to intervene more and more.
The fifth, most ludicrous and unacceptable proposition, about which Conservative Back-Bench Members are also unhappy, is that the legislation introduces retrospective law. Although the Bill may not succeed in getting on to the statute book for months to come, irrespective of what may happen in the law-making process—we know what happened last year in the other place—this legislation will apply from the first day of spring this year.
The Government must be worried. I read in today's newspaper that the Prime Minister is contemplating making more peers in a week or two. That happened during the first part of this century. To ensure the passage of legislation, a substantial number of additional peers were created. Hon. Members who have read the article will know that not even a balanced number of peers are to be created. The Government will ensure that their already large majority is increased by a relatively disproportionate number of Conservative peers. Perhaps it is because the Government are even more worried this year that the other place, which does not have guillotines and does not have to do what the Government say, may give them an even harder time than it did 12 months ago.

Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman considers himself to be the defender of Asquith and Lloyd George, he is on dangerous ground.

Mr. Hughes: I am aware of the historical precedent, but, as the hon. Gentleman would also argue, just because

something has been done by somebody in the past, it does not make righteous and holy someone doing the same thing at a later date.
The metropolitan counties have every reason to feel that the Government are being unfair to them. The only examples cited have affected London. That shows the folly of rushing into this sort of legislation, generalising powers, and seeking to say that the same rules should apply to Newcastle upon Tyne as to Lambeth, and to Merseyside as to Southwark. It is a ludicrous way to legislate, and yet another example of how the Government, at the last moment, seek to persuade the House to act.
Many people are unhappy, not only about the constitutional principles, but about the implications of the measure. Can the Minister assure the House that if this proposal and these new clauses are passed, whatever else may happen, no voluntary body or grants to voluntary bodies will be covered by the definitions of contracts or agreements in either of these new clauses? They must be sure that they will not be affected by the provisions.
I hope that the House will reject the new clauses. They are unconstitutional and dishonourable. If they are a problem to the House, they are a problem of the Government's making.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am aware that the House wishes to move quickly to the next new clause, so I shall reply briefly to the debate.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned voluntary bodies. The fact is that the £15,000 level required for consent under section 137, for which we were chided by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), covers the bulk of grants to voluntary bodies. I was asked about the £15,000 level generally. In view of the record of apparent avoidance of the £100,000 level in the existing legislation, clearly we had to decide upon a significantly lower figure. As £15,000 was the figure mentioned in section 137, we believed it to be appropriate.
However, I emphasise that we shall be issuing general consents to ensure that many normal transactions can go through. It is not our intention to interfere with those normal transactions. We have introduced these measures because we fear abnormal arrangements and contracts. We had good evidence of that when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who said that the GLC had already taken some action to approve contracts for propaganda worth £1 million. That is probably on the verge of illegality, because the authorities are supposed to come to us with contracts of £100,000. The district auditor may decide to take the GLC to court on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he wished to protect the constitution. He is not alone in that regard on the Government side. I hope that we all wish to protect the constitution. Let me give him some examples of the ways in which we have tried to protect the constitutions of some successor authorities. My hon. Friend rightly recognised the activities of the militant Left, and he would no more support them than would any Conservative Member, but it is a little naive for him to wring his hands after the event and say, "I deplore the activities of the militant Left in spending money in this way," when by sensible and


rational anticipatory action some of those consequences can be avoided. When I was asked for examples, I gave the example from West Yorkshire of action taken last Thursday afternoon. Incidentally, the director general of the GLC had a letter delivered to him by hand on Thursday afternoon, as did the chief executives of the county councils—

Mr. Tony Banks: I have a copy of a letter which the director general sent to The Times, which makes it clear that he was not advised until 9.20 am on Friday.

Mr. Baker: That may be due to the internal arrangements of the GLC. I assure the hon. Gentleman that letters were taken by hand not only to the director general's office but to the offices of the chief executives of all the metropolitan county councils on Thursday afternoon.
The successor authorities of Greater Manchester—at least the Conservative boroughs—have made it clear to the Government that they are alarmed about the plans of Greater Manchester county council, first, to exhaust reserves; secondly, to make contracts for pet development projects which the districts will be obliged to fulfil after abolition; and, thirdly, to agree major contracts in the weeks before abolition. The successor authorities ask me, "What will you do about our constitutional position?" They say, "The county councils should consult us, because after 1 April 1986 we shall have to pay the bills." I must protect their constitutional position. There are two sides to the matter

Mr. Cormack: I accept that completely, as my right hon. Friend will know, but he also knows that, like the Irishman, I would not have started from this point. I would have left this matter to the ballot box and the will of the electorate. Far from being a folk hero, Mr. Livingstone would have been seen into oblivion by the electorate if we had attacked him on these matters as we should have done.

Mr. Baker: That may or may not be the case. I appreciate my hon. Friend's position on the abolition legislation, but I must act to protect the interests of the successor authorities and their ratepayers. Enormous obligations could have been undertaken by the GLC and the metropolitan counties between now and abolition, which would have imposed enormous financial burdens on the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs. If I did nothing about that, I should be failing in my duty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said, in this battle it is no good fighting with one hand tied behind one's back. But that would be the result if we did not take these measures. There is clear evidence from statements by Mr. Livingstone and other members of the GLC that they wish to create an opportunity for life after death, a GLC in exile, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said, empires preserved after abolition. That is clearly not the intention of the House, which gave a Second Reading to the Bill. It would subvert the will of Parliament and might impose enormous financial obligations on successor authorities.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the cases that he has mentioned of asset stripping and agreeing large contracts will not be challengeable in the courts by the successor authorities?

Mr. Baker: Almost all actions of the Secretary of State or of local authorities are subject to judicial review in one way or another, but in many cases it would be difficult to prove that the contract should not have been made.
The tradition of local government is one of consent and reasonableness, which many militant councils are not prepared to accept. Local government is changing, as I have said repeatedly. I introduce these measures with much regret, but I believe that they will protect the interests of the ratepayers in the metropolitan areas and in Greater London, and the financial interests of the successor councils. I hope that the clauses will be added to the Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 189.

Division No. 167]
[6.38 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashby, David
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Beggs, Roy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Best, Keith
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, Sir John


Blackburn, John
Favell, Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Fletcher, Alexander


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fry, Peter


Browne, John
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burt, Alistair
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Hon Adam
Gow, Ian


Butterfill, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hanley, Jeremy


Cockeram, Eric
Hannam, John






Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harvey, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, J.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayhoe. Barney
Moore, John


Hayward, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Hickmel, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins. Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hirst, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, J.


Holland. Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powley, John


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Key, Robert
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Convey)


Lamont, Norman
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shersby, Michael


McCusker, Harold
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David John
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McQuarrie, Albert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Major, John
Spence, John


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Walden, George


Stokes, John
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitney, Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tracey, Richard
WoIfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Alton, David
Deakins, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dykes, Hugh


Barnett, Guy
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ellis, Raymond


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry


Benn, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Anthony
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Freud, Clement


Bruce, Malcolm
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman


Caborn, Richard
Golding, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Robert
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hoyle, Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Craigen, J. M.
Hume, John


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cunningham, Dr John
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, M.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Leighton, Ronald
Robertson, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rooker, J. W.


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Edward
Ryman, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McTaggart, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Michie, William
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wainwright, R.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, David
Wareing, Robert


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Weetch, Ken


O'Brien, William
White, James


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woodall, Alec


Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Penhaligon, David



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Allen McKay and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Robin Corbett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

CONTROL OF DISPOSALS AND CONTRACTS

'(1) Any disposal made after 21st March 1985 in contravention of section 8 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 shall be void; and section 128(2) of the principal Act (protection of purchases etc.) shall not have effect in relation to the consent required by the said section 8 for any disposal made after that date.
(2) As respects any contract entered into after that date subsection (1) of section 9 of the said Act of 1984 shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to £250,000 and for each reference to £100,000 of a reference to £15,000.
(3) No contract entered into after the said 21st March in contravention of the said section 9 shall be enforceable against a successor authority; and accordingly subsection (5) of that section shall not apply to any contract entered into after that date.
(4) An application under section 10 of the said Act of 1984 (disqualification for membership of local authority) may be made by a successor authority and in that section "local authority" shall include the Common Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(5) Where by reason of a disposal or contract made after the said 21st March in contravention of section 8 or 9 of the said Act of 1984 the High Court has power to make an order under section 10 of that Act in respect of any person it shall also have power to order him to pay to the Greater London Council or, as the case may be, to the metropolitan county council (or, in the case of an order made on or after the abolition date, to the appropriate residuary body) a sum not exceeding—


(a) in the case of a disposal in contravention of section 8, an amount equal to the amount or value of the consideration for the disposal or, if there is no consideration or it is less than the market value of what is disposed of, an amount equal to that market value;
(b) in the case of a contract in contravention of section 9, an amount equal to the amount or value of the consideration in respect of the matters by virtue of which the contract is subject to that section.

(6) No order shall be made in respect of any person under the said section 10 or subsection (5) above if the court is satisfied that he acted in the belief that the disposal or contract had the consent of the Secretary of State and that any conditions attached to the consent had been compiled with.
(7) In this section "successor authority" has the same meaning as in section (Control of liabilities affecting successor authorities) above.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) may inadvertently have misled the House when he said during the discussion on new clauses 9 and 10 that the Greater London council was advised on Thursday afternoon. This particular clause came into effect at midnight on Thursday, and my information is that the director general of the GLC did not receive a letter until 9.20 on Friday morning. It was time-stamped when it came into his office. Since the Minister said that the letter was delivered directly to the director general's office, I cannot believe that it would have been sitting around in county hall during the course of the afternoon. Will the Minister double check with his civil servants about when the letter was delivered, because this is a serious matter?

Mr Kenneth Baker: Of course, I shall assist the House and the hon. Gentleman. The advice that I have received—I have already double-checked it, but I shall check it again—is that letters were taken by hand to each of the county councils and to the offices of the director general and of the chief executive. I shall find out what happened. We certainly did our part in delivering the letter to the various authorities.

New clause 8

GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

'(1) A scheme for the making of grants to eligible voluntary organisations may be made for Greater London or a metropolitan county by the constituent councils, that is to say—

(a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and
(b) in relation to a metropolitan county, the councils of the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.

(2) Any such scheme shall provide—

(a) for the grants to be made by one of the constituent councils designated for that purpose by the scheme; and
(b) for the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in making the grants or otherwise in discharging its functions under the scheme.

(3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number estimated by the


Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
(5) The total expenditure incurred under a scheme by a designated council in Greater London or a metropolitan county in any financial year (including the amounts recoverable under the scheme from other councils) shall not exceed such amount as is for the time being prescribed for that area by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) A scheme shall not provide for the making of grants before the beginning of the financial year after that in which the scheme is made and shall continue in force until the end of at least two financial years after that in which it is made.
(7) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.
(8) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient and, subject to subsection (6) above, may be revoked by those councils (or, in the absence of agreement between all of them, by a majority of those councils) with effect from the end of any financial year after that in which the decisions to revoke the scheme is made.
(9) The council designated by a scheme may by giving not less than twelve months notice to the other constituent councils withdraw its consent to act as designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.
(10) In this section "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit but does not include any public or local authority and "eligible voluntary organisation" means, in relation to Greater London or a metropolitan county, a voluntary organisation whose activities will directly or indirectly benefit either the whole of Greater London or that county or any part of it extending beyond the area of any particular constituent council.
(11) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the principal Act (power to incur expenditure for purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.
(12) As respect expenditure incurred before the abolition date subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to two-thirds of the constituent councils of a reference to a majority of those councils.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.—[Sir George Young.]

The Parliamntary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments to the proposed new clause: (a), in subsection (1), after 'by', insert
'the regional economic and social councils established by sub-sections (2A) and (2B) below, and'.
(b), in subsection (1)(a), after first 'London', insert
'the Greater London Regional Economic and Social Council'.
(c), in subsection (1)(b), after 'county', insert
'each metropolitan county regional social and economic council'.
(d), at end of subsection (1)(b), insert—
'(1A) (a) There shall be established for Greater London and for each metropolitan county a body corporate which shall be known in the case of each body corporate for Greater London as the Greater London Regional Economic and Social Council and in the case of a metropolitan county by the name of that county with the addition of the words "Regional Economic and Social Council.
(b) The Regional Economic and Social Council shall consist of members elected by the local government electors of Greater London, or as the case may be, of the appropriate metropolitan county, in accordance with this Act and of Representation of the People Act 1983.

(1B) In addition to the function mentioned in subsection (1) above a Regional Economic and Social Council shall have the powers and duties set out in Schedule () (Functions of Regional economic and Social Councils) and in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) above a Regional Economic and Social Council shall have regard to its duties under that Schedule.
(e), after '(2)', insert 'as respects constituent councils,'.
(f), in subsection (6), after 'scheme', insert
'made by a constituent council'.
(g), leave out subsection (7).
(h), in subsection (8), after 'scheme', insert
'made by a constituent council'.
(i), leave out subsection (12).
New clause 1—Support for voluntary organisations—
'The Government shall provide transitional support under the London Government (Social Needs) Act 1969 for expenditure by London boroughs or metropolitan district councils, acting under the powers conferred by section 46 above or under any other of their powers, on revenue support to voluntary organisations benefiting their areas which are funded in the year before the abolition date wholly or partly by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council; and such transitional support shall be provided annually for the four years after the abolition date up to an amount comparable in real terms to spending by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils on grants to voluntary organisations in the year before the abolition date.'.
Government amendment 18.
Amendment No. 107, new schedule—'Functions of Regional Economic and Social Councils—
1. Each Regional Economic and Social Council shall

(a) develop, coordinate and annually review a regional strategy to improve the welfare of their area and its inhabitants which shall cover and take account of the social, economic, environmental, recreational and cultural, and, where appropriate, the housing needs of the area and that strategy shall include measures to combat the problems of homelessness, drug abuse, and alcoholism and action to combat racial disadvantage, to promote equal opportunities and the needs of black and ethnic minority communities, services for ex-offenders, people with disabilities, disadvantaged families and children and elderly people, services for women, advice and counselling services, community transport and leisure services.
(b) have the power to make grants to voluntary organisations.
(c) highlight new and emerging needs, develop programmes to inform public opinion and attitudes and promote innovative and experimental projects and services.

2.—(1) Each Regional Economic and Social Council shall publish an annual statement of its intentions with regard to policy development and grant aid, giving details of the criteria and policy proposed to be adopted by that council, and make that statement widely available to members of the public, and to voluntary and community organisations and other interested and relevant bodies.
(2) In preparing the statement mentioned in 2(1) above, each Regional Economic and Social Council shall consult with voluntary and community organisations, the councils of London boroughs and metropolitan districts (as the case may be) and other interested and relevant bodies and members of the public.
3. Each Regional Economic and Social Council shall—

(a) conduct or assist in the conducting of investigations into, and the collection of information relating to any matter concerning the social, economic, environmental, cultural, recreational and welfare of the inhabitants of its area;
(b) make, or assist in making arrangements whereby any such information and the results of any such investigation are made available to any other local authority concerned with local government in its area, any Government department, any voluntary or community organisation or the public.



4. The powers conferred by this Schedule and Section 47 above shall not be regarded as restricting in any way the powers and duties of the councils of London boroughs or districts in metropolitan counties.'.

Sir George Young: New clause 8 would replace clause 47 which is deleted by amendment 18. It deals with the arrangement for collective funding of voluntary bodies which provide a countywide or Londonwide service. The Government have always been determined to provide districts and boroughs with the means to work together to fund these bodies. However, there was a feeling at the Committee stage, voiced most persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), but also by other hon. Members, that the proposals in the original Bill could be improved. My hon. Friend pointed out that there was a need to strengthen the arrangements by providing for a lead borough or district to run an agreed scheme of grant funding. Our new proposal will make more stable collective funding for London and countywide organisations and will also provide a single point to which they can apply for grants. It will also allow a proper grants unit to be set up to consider needs across the whole area and to advise local councillors on a coherent approach to grant giving.
From the many letters which I have received from voluntary bodies in London, it appears that they were concerned that there should be one single focal point to which they could apply, a focal point which in turn could provide a coherent policy for voluntary giving in London. I was also able to respond at that time to the view of many voluntary bodies that the limits which we had originally proposed to set on funding under the scheme — £10 million in London and £3 million for the metropolitan counties—were too low. As I said in Committee, those figures have been withdrawn for reconsideration.
We have consulted the voluntary organisations at all stages and we continue to do so. Last week I met representatives of the metropolitan councils for voluntary service with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and next week I shall be seeing the London voluntary bodies. Taken together, the two developments which I have just mentioned have been welcomed by the voluntary sector. The chairman of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying this:
I am glad that George Young was able to announce some improvements on 26 February and warmly welcome his repeated assurances that the Government's mind is open and that the representations made in Committee and elsewhere about the level of transitional finance and other matters will be listened to with care.
I would not pretend that we have convinced all of the organisations that all their anxieties will be relieved. On this subject, may I quote what the chairman of the London Voluntary Service Council has said in a letter that he has written to me:
I and colleagues in the voluntary sector in London welcome these proposals as an indication of your concern for the problems we shall face, but must stress that they fall short of allaying the deep anxieties that exist among voluntary organisations in a number of respects.
Of course I understand those anxieties and I take the point, but I cannot accept that it is entirely within the power of central Government to provide a complete answer. The only full assurance which can be given for the future funding of local groups has to come from the local

authorities themselves. If one believes in devolving decisions to local government that must be right. Whatever Parliament provides, it is for the district and borough councils to decide at the end of the day the support that is to go to their local voluntary organisations.
This makes it especially welcome that the London boroughs, under the leadership of David Cobbold, have already made good progress in preparing for grant-giving in 1986. At a local level, I noticed in last week's edition of the Ealing Gazette that the London borough of Ealing has already advertised, asking local organisations currently funded by the GLC to get in touch with it by the end of May. But there has been promising progress on the boroughs' collective grant scheme. I understand that the boroughs will be advertising the post of head of the grants unit very shortly. They have already interviewed management consultants who will advise quickly on the best way of constituting the unit and its terms of reference. Progress has been particularly good on housing grants where the London Boroughs Association has decided that 61 organisations providing for the single homeless should be invited to apply for a grant and that this will apply to a number of co-ordinating bodies, organisations providing day centres for the single homeless and all women's aid hostels in London. In short, a scheme in London is already well under way.
Recently the director of SHAC wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said:
We have received a copy of the London Boroughs Association report on the funding of housing organisations under the London-wide arrangements. The report, and indeed its approval by the LBA, is most heartening, as for the first time we have been given an indication that we may expect continuing financial support at a level which will allow us broadly to maintain our current level of services. Obviously there are still hurdles to be crossed before this is translated into a firm decision, supported by the necessary majority of London boroughs, but it is nevertheless a considerable advance on the position prior to our discussion early in December.
Therefore the arrangements in London are encouraging. However, I was disappointed to see that the Association of Labour Authorities in London has apparently boycotted the new measures that are being introduced to ensure continuity of funding for London's voluntary bodies. I very much hope that it will review the rather negative posture that it appears to have adopted. The picture in the metropolitan councils is not at this stage quite so good. As yet, the district councils have been slow to respond to the request of voluntary bodies to make preparations for 1986. I shall do all I can to get things going. Indeed, I am about to write to all the metropolitan districts to ask them what arrangements they are making and to encourage them to prepare in good time. Some districts may be reluctant at the moment to acknowledge publicly that the county councils will be abolished, but I think that once the political principle is settled they will fund worthwhile voluntary bodies. When they do so they will find the powers in this clause are ready to be used.
7 pm
Briefly, the new clause provides that a simple majority of boroughs or districts may set up a scheme of collective grant-giving and appoint one of their number as the lead borough or district to run it. The provision of a 51 per cent. majority for setting up a scheme is to simplify and expedite the task of getting these arrangements going both in London and in the metropolitan counties, given the very tight timetable if new grant schemes are to be fully


operational by 1 April 1986. It is part of the package of changes which we provided in response to the wish of voluntary bodies to make collective grant-giving more stable and workable.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: I welcome the idea that lead boroughs should be appointed to run the schemes, but many voluntary organisations in Lewisham, which have made representations to me to pass on to the Government, are worried about the transitional arrangements and the amount of money available under those arrangements. Can the Minister offer some ray of hope to such voluntary organisations?

Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I shall deal with transitional funding later.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I would stress that we should not be put off by the small number of lunatic voluntary organisations to which well-publicised, but relatively small, grants have been made. The many legitimate voluntrary organisations which are doing valuable work are worried about the level of funding during the transitional period.

Sir George Young: The Government have said that the majority of grants which the GLC gives are to worth while voluntary organisations which will be supported by Londoners and hon. Members of all parties representing London constituencies. I understand the anxieties and I shall deal shortly with the arrangements for transitional funding.
Under the new clause it will be for the local authorities to decide the details of the scheme, but certain elements are provided in the clause itself. Expenditure on grants must receive two thirds support from the districts or boroughs. The same majority is needed to pay for any other expenditure incurred, including administrative expenses. Once two thirds agree, all the councils will be required to contribute a share calculated in relation to the size of their population.
Having a statutory scheme and a lead borough will make collective grant-giving more workable. To provide greater stability we are also requiring a period of notice before a scheme can be ended, or a lead borough can resign or be removed. This will protect both the financial position of the lead borough and its staff and give reasonable assurance to the bodies relying on local authority grants and to the other boroughs and districts.
Again, as a protection to those councils which do not approve grants, but are nevertheless required to pay, we are retaining the power for the Secretary of State to set a ceiling on collective grant-giving. We have withdrawn the original figure we floated, but the need for a power remains.
As with clause 47, the whole of the scheme involves a new grant-giving power outside section 137 expenditure, the restrictions of which cause concern to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). But the new arrangements differ from clause 47 in recognising through subsection (12) of the new clause that the administrative expenses incurred before abolition day should require only a simple majority for approval. The Opposition have sought to remove this provision, but I hope that they will not press their amendment when I assure them that this is another change directed to getting the arrangements off the ground as quickly as possible. This must be in the interests of

those voluntary bodies which are concerned about whether the schemes will be worked up in time for April 1986. I should like it to be clear that this does not permit grants to be given on a simple majority. Only the setting up costs, the processing of applications, and so on, before 1 April 1986 will be covered by this provision. It is sensible for the majority to be 51 per cent. because these financial decisions stem directly from the agreement to set up a scheme and to get it going in the first year—which will also need only 51 per cent. agreement.

Mr. Moynihan: May I urge my hon. Friend to answer my question about the transitional arrangements and the money that will be available to voluntary organisations?

Sir George Young: I shall now deal with the transitional support arrangements and with new clause 1. Our original proposals for the future funding of voluntary bodies, published in September 1984, suggested that the Government would pay 75 per cent. grant on up to £5 million worth of voluntary projects. That was to help the local groups, working within a single district or borough, such as Lewisham, which would not be eligible for support under the collective scheme that I have described. Since the proposals were published we have been holding meetings with voluntary bodies and listening to their views. Anxieties have been expressed today by some of my hon. Friends.
I have always made it clear that most of the grants after abolition will come from existing resources released by the abolition of the upper tier council and its precepts. We offered £5 million of extra money to ease transitional problems, but it was never our intention that only £5 million worth of projects should continue.
In the light of the further evidence now available and of the anxieties expressed by voluntary organisations and by some of my hon. Friends, I am happy to say that we have decided to give grant on up to £10 million worth of projects for four years after abolition rather than the £5 million originally proposed. That is double the amount proposed before and it will enable more projects to be supported. It will make the transition after abolition smoother.
Representations from the voluntary organisations make it clear that the concern and uncertainty is greatest about what will happen in the first year after the GLC and the metropolitan counties are abolished. To meet that concern, in 1986–87 central Government will provide 75 per cent. of the support—that is £7·5 million instead of £3·75 million—twice that which was originally proposed. That will make it easier for local authorities to continue supporting worthwhile schemes in the crucial first year after abolition.
In each of the subsequent three years the £10 million worth of schemes will continue to be grant-aided, but the proportion of grant coming from central Government will be tapered to 50 per cent. in the second and third years and to 75 per cent. in the fourth. In the fifth year the transition will be complete and responsibility for grant aid will rest with the local authorities.

Mr. Fred Silvester: My hon. Friend said that the earlier scheme was devised to support voluntary bodies within one district. Will the new enlarged scheme cover bodies operating in more than one district?

Sir George Young: The schemes which cover more than one district come under the collective scheme set out in new clause 8. The transitional funding is for schemes which operate within one borough but which are funded at present either by the GLC or the metropolitan councils. The increase from £5 million to £10 million worth of projects applies to borough-based or district-based schemes.
We need detailed information about GLC grant-giving to help plan for grants to voluntary bodies after abolition. When the LBA asked, it was told that GLC officers were too busy to provide the information. It is several weeks since the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggested that the GLC grant print-out should be tabled. It is four weeks since we issued a section 5 notice requesting the information. We still do not have that information, although I know that an up-to-date and comprehensive print-out exists at county hall.
All that the GLC has done so far is to give us polite excuses. The GLC is being less helpful than it should be. Perhaps it would rather voluntary organisations suffered than recognise that abolition will come and that sensible preparations must be made. I ask the GLC to come off its high horse and to look, as we have, to positive arrangements to safeguard the future of voluntary organisations, and to prove, by co-operating fully with us, that it puts the interests of voluntary groups first.
The arrangements that I have outlined provide additional assurances for the voluntary sector. The essence of new clause 8 is that it meets our commitment to provide for stable and equitable funding arrangements for bodies serving a wide area of London or the metropolitan counties. The increase in transitional grants that I have announced will reassure the more local groups. We have built on clause 46 as it was presented to the Standing Committee and we have taken account of the misgivings expressed there. I believe that we now have a proposal that will work well. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Harry Cowans: If the Minister is saying what the new clause would do, several people would welcome it. He quoted in his favour a letter—I do not know who it was from—which said that the Government had listened with care. It was hardly wildly enthusiastic about the new proposals.
I congratulate the Government on recognising, after much prompting in Committee, that there is a problem. Unfortunately the remedy, if anything, makes the matter slightly worse. The Minister is on record as saying that he wants a grant unit, but the new clause does not provide for it. Local authorities might set up a lead authority, but there is nothing in the legislation that suggests how voluntary organisations will be protected if the local authorities decide not to set up a lead authority. There will be no common unit. Our amendment (d) takes care of that because it grasps the nettle that the Government are not prepared to grasp. They go halfway there by saying that there should be an overall body to look after the voluntary service; then they step back from the action by saying, "We shall do that if a local authority supplies a lead authority." We believe that one cannot step back from the problem. We accept that there should be one unit. We go forward into the battle and appoint that unit in amendment (d). The Minister steps back and opts out.
There is nothing to protect a voluntary body if a lead authority is not set up. That may or may not happen. The

Minister cannot tell whether a lead authority will be set up. He says that in London the scheme is well under way. I remind every hon. Member in the House that much of the debate today has been about the GLC, but there are also six metropolitan districts in which there are numerous voluntary bodies. It is not good enough for the Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to refer only to the GLC. The legislation covers the metropolitan counties. The quicker Ministers recognise that, the better. Every time they quote anything in aid—there is little that they can quote in aid—they refer to the GLC. On the Tory Benches there has been little mention of the metropolitan counties. Everything that has been quoted has been about the GLC, and people in metropolitan districts are getting very tired of that. We are all involved in the legislation, for which the Government are responsible.

Sir George Young: I must make it clear that new clause 8 applies to the metropolitan districts as well as to the GLC.

Mr. Cowans: The point that I am making is that the whole legislation applies to the metropolitan districts, yet Tory Members refer only to the GLC. That cannot be denied, and Hansard will show that fact.
The £10 million for the voluntary organisations is far too little, and the Minister knows it. It is nowhere near what is required. It is not as much as is being spent now, so it is completely wrong to say that the new clause will protect the voluntary organisations. Patently it will do nothing of the sort, and, what is more, the voluntary organisations know it.
It is a fact that £14 million is currently being spent. The Minister goes further in the urban programme and talks about an extra amount of money for that programme. Again, it falls far short of what is required just to maintain voluntary organisations at their present level. The Minister understands that, and he should be open enough to say that, while he has done something, he can give no assurance to the voluntary organisations that this new clause or any other, without our amendment, will do anything for them.
The Minister accepts, under pressure, that the two thirds majority is a bad thing, but he accepts it only because he knows that the Government are making a hotchpotch of trying to operate the transitional period. If it is good enough for the open scheme to have a simple majority, that should be good enough overall. In that way, the local voluntary organisations would not spend all that time lobbying five or six districts to try to get the two thirds majority. It is an absolute nonsense. The Minister has looked at, but certainly has not grasped, the nettle.
I hope that the Minister will take back the new clause and think about what will happen if there is no lead authority. Is the Minister prepared to put the matter to one of the new bodies? Alternatively, is he prepared to do nothing and to wash his hands of it? If there is no lead authority, voluntary organisations may go to the wall. Is the Minister prepared to look at the amount of money that is currently being spent and at least try to match it over a period? Is he also prepared not to spend so much time telling people how to withdraw after two years? Will he go back to the drawing board and reconsider the transitional arrangements, because the nonsense in the new clause will not cover them?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief because we have such a ludicrously short time to deal with the matter. As the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) said, to set out a two thirds criterion for deciding which bodies get money and then decide that a scheme can be set up with a simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one is ludicrous, biased and weighted. The Government are doing it only because they know that they will be able to retain more political control through it. That is one of the points of our objection, and it is one reason why we have tabled new clause 1.
The voluntary sector is the vital third element in our national support for a whole range of activities. At the moment it is funded by a multiplicity of agencies. Elsewhere the Government have undertaken that no one will be worse off as a result of abolition. They should apply the same rule to the voluntary sector. It is not good enough to give as little as they think they can get away with, to make an announcement in Committee that they will give £5 million, then realise that many of their own right hon. and hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members think that that is not enough, and come to the House with a second compromise saying that they will give £10 million. The Government should accept what is in new clause 1, whereby the voluntary sector has the same amount of funds as before abolition. That is vital. People across a range of services depend on the voluntary sector.
I should like to add two other simple and straightforward points. First, one of the reasons why we must continue supporting the voluntary sector to this extent is that in many places local authorities, such as the borough of Southwark, are spending up to their limit. Southwark is one of the places where an authority is spending within a few percentage points of what it can raise by other means. It is therefore ludicrous to say that, just because in some cases spending up to the limit of what can be raised by the 2p rate does not happen, there will be no other money. That money is vital, and rate capping makes the matter worse.
Secondly, the voluntary sector is all about bringing more people into participating in decisions, activities and power. The voluntary sector, whether concerning pensioners, ethnic minorities, the handicapped, or others, is all about helping people to help themselves. The Government have declared that they are in favour of that. What they are trying to do falls lamentably short. I sincerely hope that the other place—if this place cannot force the Government to do it—will make sure that it does not let the Government get away with their niggardly compromise, which is unacceptable to me and all my alliance colleagues.

Mr. Alfred Morris: By common consent among those who concern themselves with the facts, many worthwhile voluntary organisations will face ruin if the six metropolitan councils and the GLC disappear. These seven important councils now fund voluntary effort to the tune of £60 million a year. Without their help, many successful voluntary bodies would have already collapsed under the weight of the heavy new VAT burden imposed upon them by the Government.
Voluntary organisations, large and small, are in danger, and there is now an urgent need for the House as a whole

to recognise what is at stake in terms of reducing help for the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable groups if this Bill, even as amended, becomes law.
While the councils now threatened with extinction by the Government have been giving enormous help to voluntary organisations, the Government have been filching millions of pounds from the voluntary sector in VAT. That is the background to any judgment we make about the Government and their new clause.
The Spastics Society lost no less than £507,000 in tax to the Chancellor in the year 1983–84 alone. Dr. Barnardo's had to pay even more, and both the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf were heavy losers. Instead of mugging the good Samaritans in this way, the Government must now be made to face up to the consequences of abolition for the voluntary sector in this country.
I wish to quote a letter sent to me this week by Sir John Cox, the director of the Spastics Society, who rightly enjoys the respect of both sides of this House. He said:
The Budget has hit us hard. There were no concessions on VAT and in fact we shall now have to find £30,000 more to cover VAT for advertising. As you know, most of our advertising is educational to help the transition of handicapped people back into the community. We will either have to find that sum of money or cut back … We particularly asked that VAT on bringing fire requirements up to date should be exempt. I think it is obscene that we should pay £30,000 in 1984–85 to bring the standard up to Government regulations.
Newspaper advertising is vital to charities. They are not allowed to advertise on television for fund-raising purposes, and they rely on advertising in newspapers not only to raise money but also to increase public awareness of the important work that they do.
One voluntary organisation after another has been in touch with me to insist that the resources now made available to them from the six metropolitan counties and the GLC should be protected by this House. I have been contacted by the Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Service, which feels strongly that the very existence of some important voluntary organisations is at stake. I hope that the House will take the message and that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will recognise how deeply important this debate is for the future of voluntaryism in this country.

Mr. Lawler: I welcome the changes that my hon. Friend the Minister has announced today, and I believe that they will be welcomed by the vast majority of voluntary organisations in the GLC and metropolitan county areas. It is highly appropriate that the needs of charity and voluntary organisations should be decided at local level because it is at that level that people best know the needs and are best able to value the work done by those organisations. It is nonsense to claim that the county knows best when most of the work is carried out at district level.
I am especially concerned about youth voluntary organisations. In 1982–83, 78 out of 96 local authorities did not spend their grant-related expenditure assessment on youth service. Therefore, £22 million which should have been spent on the needs of young people and the youth service was not spent.
Certain councils—predominantly Socialist—spend the vast proportion of their funds on the statutory youth service and only a minimal amount on the voluntary organisations. For example, Doncaster spent as little as 0·7 per cent. on youth service voluntary organisations. I hope that


Ministers will do what they can to correct that and that local councillors and voluntary organisations will press the councils to honour their obligations towards the voluntary sector.
I am also concerned about ethnic minorities. A great deal of misplaced lobbying has suggested that ethnic minority organisations will go without grant. It is at the local level that councils recognise the needs of those groups, not at county level. Across a county or across the GLC there are many different types of ethnic minority groups. For example, in the city of Bradford £720,000 is being spent on 32 ethnic minority related projects. West Yorkshire spends £64,000 on its community programme, none of which goes to projects directly related to the needs of ethnic minorities. That proves that the needs of the ethnic minority organisations can be best met at district level.
Another area of concern is the funding of the regional headquarters of youth organisations. I hope that Ministers will ensure that responsible districts will take up the funding of regional headquarters to ensure their continued development across counties.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed, (d) in line 6 at end insert—
'(1A) (a) There shall be established for Greater London and for each metropolitan county a body corporate which shall be known in the case of each body corporate for Greater London as the Greater London Regional Economic and Social Council and in the case of a metropolitan county by the name of that county with the addition of the words "Regional Economic and Social Council.
(b) The Regional Economic and Social Councils shall consist of members elected by the local government electors of Greater London, or as the case may be, of the appropriate metropolitan county, in accordance with this Act and of Representation of the People Act 1983.
(1B) In addition to the function mentioned in subsection (1) above a Regional Economic and Social Council shall have the powers and duties set out in Schedule () (Functions of Regional Economic and Social Councils) and in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) above a Regional Economic and Social Council shall have regard to its duties under that Schedule.— [Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 325.

Division No. 168]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Barron, Kevin
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clay, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Coleman, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbett, Robin


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cowans, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Martin, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ellis, Raymond
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Penhaligon, David


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Redmond, M.


Freud, Clement
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Garrett, W. E.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Golding, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gould, Bryan
Robertson, George


Gourlay, Harry
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ryman, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sedgemore, Brian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheerman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Heffer, Eric S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Douglas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Greville
Straw, Jack


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


John, Brynmor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tinn, James


Kennedy, Charles
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Woodall, Alec


Loyden, Edward
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. John Cartwright and


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. John McWilliam.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Arnold, Tom
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)






Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Galley, Roy


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Benyon, William
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hannam, John


Browne, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, J.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John (TV Luton)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hickmet, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Coombs, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)





Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lyell, Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCusker, Harold
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spence, John


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Derek


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mellor, David
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stokes, John


Moore, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, J.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steven
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Ryder, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 1, line 15, leave out '1st April 1986' and insert
'such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint after he has laid an order before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) for the Residuary Bodies established under this section 55(1) of this Act to have a membership directly elected in accordance with the Representation of The People Act 1983 and this Act and that Section 55 and schedule 13 of this Act be consequentially modified; and
(b) for the name of the Residuary Bodies to be changed in consequence of the implementation of proposals of this sub-section; and
(c) providing for the transfer to the Residuary Bodies of such functions, not being functions which are transferred by this Act solely to individual London boroughs or metropolitan district councils as appropriate, as shall be determined by Parliament on the recommendation of a Select Committee.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 6, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'(3) Within three months of the date of the Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay an order before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) for the London Residuary Body established under section 55(1)(a) of this Act to have a membership directly elected in accordance with the Representation of the people Act 1983 and this Act and that section 55 and Schedule 13 of this Act be consequentially modified; and
(b) for the name of the London Residuary Body to be changed in consequence of the implementation of proposals of this sub-section; and
(c) for section 65 of this Act to cease to have effect as respects the London Residuary Body; and
(d) providing for the transfer to the London Residuary Body of such functions, not being functions which are transferred by this Act solely to individual London boroughs, as shall be determined by Parliament on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. '.

No. 72, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to subsections (6) and (6A) below,'.
No. 71, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the constitution of a directly elected body in Greater London and in each of the metropolitan counties with functions including responsibility as allowed before the passage of this Act by the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils of strategic land use and transport planning, conservation, listed buildings, major roads and traffic management, and economic development.'.
No. 73, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
'(6) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the establishment within each metropolitan county or Greater London, as the case may be, of an authority to carry out the following functions:


(a) to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect the planning and development of the area of the metropolitan county or Greater London, as the case may be and, if it thinks fit, to institute a survey or surveys for examining those matters;
(b) to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval a strategic plan for that area which shall include the matters described in subsection (6A) below; and
(c) to keep any strategic plan for that area under review and to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for such alterations to that plan as from time to time appear expedient.

(6A) The strategic plan for the area of a metropolitan county or Greater London, as the case may be, shall be prepared following consultation with the local planning authorities in that area, the highway authorities in that area, the metropolitan county passenger transport authority, or the London Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, and such other local planning authorities, bodies and individuals as the authority considers appropriate; and shall contain a written statement formulating general policies and guidance in respect of the development and other use of land in that area, including general policies and guidance relating to: —

(a) the general level of provision for housing development in that area indicating the provision to be made by each local planning authority;
(b) major transport proposals, and the principles to be adopted in the management of traffic, especially where such proposals and principles involve routes which cross local authority boundaries;
(c) the general level of provision and locations for major commercial or industrial development and strategic centres;
(d) the need to regenerate and improve urban areas and the priorities to be adopted in that regeneration and improvement;
(e) green belt, agricultural land, countryside, minerals extraction, waste disposal, and such other matters as the authority thinks appropriate.'.

No. 21, in clause 55, page 37, line 34, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3A) Each of these bodies shall consist of members elected by the local government electors of Greater London or the metropolitan county, as the case may be.
(3B) Each appropriate residuary body shall consist of the number of members set out in Schedule (Number of members of Residuary Body) hereto. That Schedule shall specify the number of members to be elected from each electoral division.
(3C) At any election of members of the residuary body, the election shall be according to the principles of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined in subsection (3D) of this section.
(3D) The expression "transferable vote" means a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order; and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.'.


No. 69, in page 43, line 36, leave out Clause 63.
No. 70, in page 44, line 27, leave out Clause 65.
No. 43, new schedule — Number of Members of Residuary Bodies—

PART I GREATER LONDON


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


City of London, Westminster, Camden, Kensington and Chelsea,
4


Hammersmith and Fulham



Wandsworth, Richmond, Kingston, Merton
4


Sutton, Croydon, Lambeth, Southwark
4


Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley, Bexley
4


Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Islington
4


Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Havering, Barking and Dagenham
4


Hounslow, Hillingdon, Ealing, Brent
4


Enfield, Haringey, Barnet, Harrow
4

PART II GREATER MANCHESTER


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Bolton
3


Bury
2


Manchester
5


Oldham
3


Rochdale
2


Salford
3


Stockport
3


Thameside
3


Trafford
3


Wigan
3

PART III MERSEYSIDE


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Knowsley
2


Liverpool
6


St. Helens
2


Sefton
4


Wirral
4

PART IV SOUTH YORKSHIRE


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Barnsley
2


Doncaster
3


Rotherham
2


Sheffield
5

PART V TYNE AND WEAR


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Gateshead
3


Newcastle upon Tyne
4


North Tyneside
2


South Tyneside
2


Sunderland
4

PART VI WEST MIDLANDS


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Birmingham
10


Coventry
3


Dudley
3


Sandwell
3


Solihull
2


Walsall
3


Wolverhampton
3

PART VII WEST YORKSHIRE


Ward
Number of Members of Residuary Body


Bradford
5


Calderdale
2


Kirklees
4


Leeds
8


Wakefield
3

Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 68 and, in particular, amendment No. 6 go to the heart of the issue of whether local services should be under some kind of elected local democratic control. That, in a nutshell, is the issue. Since the introduction of the Bill that has been a major issue in the House, between the parties and within the Conservative party. Many Conservative Members, to their credit, have opposed these proposals and the preceding legislation, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984, on the principle that local services should be under democratically elected control.
The present proposals not only suggest a plethora of joint boards, quangos and ad hoc organisations, but, in addition, are less likely to secure what the Government say are their aims—greater accountability in the response to the public and the use of public resources, and more efficient use of those precious public resources. Whatever else the Government may say about the Bill they cannot and never have been able to claim, and certainly cannot claim at this late stage, that they have adduced in Committee or elsewhere any credible evidence or argument to overcome the fundamental criticisms of their proposals.
The Bill rests upon an undesirable mixture of the inefficient and the undemocratic. The underlying philosophy of joint working between district councils, in the formal context of joint boards, the informal structure of a joint committee, or the objectionable imposition of majority decisions and charges on dissenting authorities, does not provide a sound basis for the good administration of local services. Indeed, the proposals contain the seeds of their own destruction.
Against that background it is not surprising that considerable concern has been expressed across a wide spectrum of opinion, including the business community throughout the United Kingdom. Certainly the Government have few friends outside the House as a result of the way in which they are approaching this re-organisation. The Government were so embarrassed by the response to their White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" that they are still withholding the evidence which the White Paper called for and which was submitted to it.
7.45 pm
There is a curious contradiction in the Government's stance on these matters. When the Rates Bill 1984 was before the House we were told that the principal issues were accountability, the relationship between local authorities' income from the rates and votes. In that legislation the Secretary of State's argument was, and I understand remains, one of the need for strengthened accountability, and he took authoritarian central powers to control what local authorities were doing. He did that in the name of safeguarding the interests of ratepayers and improving accountability.
Under this Bill the control of finance is removed altogether from directly elected authorities. It is vested in either indirectly elected bodies or boards or quangos of the kind to which I have been referring. In this case central powers are being taken and vested in the Secretary of State which will reduce accountability. The Government want to have it both ways. In the Rates Act they took the powers that they did because they said that to do so would improve accountability and the use of public resources. In this Bill they are doing exactly the reverse. They cannot have it both ways. Both stances cannot be right.
In November, The Times said:
The abolition bill can be examined in vain for any expression of a general philosophy of the role of Government in society, a doctrine of fiscal limits. It is a document lacking any sense of future … It is a document lacking coherent principles for local administration".
That was true then and it remains true today.
The reality is that many of the questions and issues, not just about the democratic principle but about the coherence of the Government's position or lack of it, about the lack of credibility in the proposals, many of which are still not finalised, and about the recipe for duplication, waste and the inefficient use of resources, remain unanswered. It would have been far better for the Government to have had a proper, wide-ranging, on-the-record inquiry into all the issues before they produced their legislation. They chose not to follow that course.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Had such an inquiry been held, as has been done many times in the past, can


the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, at least in the case of the GLC, members of the Labour party theron would have participated?

Dr. Cunningham: The Labour party as a whole would have participated in the inquiry, just as we intend to involve ourselves in the Widdicombe inquiry and just as we would like to be involved in the behind closed doors inquiry which is now going on into the needed changes in local government finance. We are not afraid to address ourselves to the issues and the arguments. On the contrary, the Government have been doing that in proposing major constitutional changes after deliberations behind-closed-doors and often at short notice.
The reality is that the Government will opt for any set of proposals except the ballot box; except letting the people decide. What they are doing in the Bill is taking power away from people; taking away the right of people to participate in democratic elections; preventing people in our capital city and major conurbations from having an authority which will reflect their hopes, aspirations and needs, some of which are desperate.
The Labour party remains committed to the proposition that whatever might emerge from the Bill, which is widely criticised and condemned, there should be an elected body of some kind.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the voice of Leeds and the interests of that community have often been in conflict with those of the metropolitan county and Bradford and the other ingredients that make up the extraordinary creations of 1974? That is why most local city Labour parties, whether in Leeds, Birmingham or elsewhere, always used to advocate their abolition.

Dr. Cunningham: I accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I do not accept that he is qualified to speak for the Labour party in Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle upon Tyne or anywhere else, so I reject that part of what he said.
Of course the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is absolutely right. There is no point in disguising — I have never attempted to do so for a moment—the fact that there are tensions and differences of view and opinion on policy matters between upper and lower tier authorities. That is just as true in the shire county areas as in the areas of the metropolitan authorities, but no one suggests that because that is so the shire counties should be abolished and there should be one level of local government in the shires. An entirely different stance is adopted by the present Administration on that point. The hon. Gentleman must know full well that there are plenty of Tories in local government who not only fundamentally oppose the Government's proposals but do not like the situation in the shires either.
We are committed to the idea of democratically elected authorities. For some of the bodies that have urged the retention of services county-wide, democratic representation has not been the major issue that it has been for local government academics, practitioners and politicians. Some people have been prepared to accept the creation of nominated bodies as the price for keeping county-wide services. The Opposition do not accept their arguments, which correspond with the Government's general stance.
Concepts such as co-opted specialists, nominated joint boards and so on are not new to local government but

cannot be regarded as a satisfactory alternative to democratically elected councils. The consequence of any further reorganisation of local government should be to improve accountability and performance, not to diminish them, but there is no evidence anywhere in the records of the Committee sittings or of the Minister's speeches that will convince my right hon. and hon. Friends and me that the Government's proposals have any hope of doing that. The very claim that they can do so is false.
We know of the deep disquiet that many Conservative Members feel and that many have voiced in the Chamber and elsewhere. It is not too late for them to stop the Government forcing through this hotch-potch of inadequate and ill-considered proposals, which will have appalling consequences for good administration in our capital city and also in the metropolitan areas. It is in order to give hon. Gentlemen a further opportunity to express their opposition to the contents of the Bill that we have moved the amendment.
We have moved similar amendments before. Hon. Gentlemen might say that they have heard my arguments before. They would be right. I make no apology for repeating those arguments tonight. Whatever else hon. Gentlemen may think about the need to support their Goverment, they cannot disguise from themselves what has been said in their own party about the consequences of the Government's sustained assault on local authorities and the democratic principles embodied in their election. I urge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches to reject this aspect of the Bill before it is too late.

Mr. Patrick Ground: I rise to speak to amendment No. 6, which would transform the residuary body created by clause 55 into a permanent elected London-wide body, and which provides for Parliament—acting on the advice of a Select Committee of the House—to transfer to the elected London-wide body functions not transferred by the Bill to individual London boroughs. I shall ask for a separate vote to he taken on amendment No. 6 immediately after the vote on amendment No. 68.
Amendment No. 6 is not inconsistent with the manifesto commitment to abolish the GLC which the Conservative party put before the electorate in June 1983. The amendment accepts that all the functions transferred by the Bill to the individual London boroughs should remain transferred, but gives Parliament the opportunity to provide that the remaining functions not so dealt with, or any combination of them, should be transferred to an elected London-wide body.
If the amendment is accepted, leading to the creation of a London-wide body with limited powers, that body will be completely different in character from the present GLC, and will have the functions that Parliament wishes it to have.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke to amendment No. 68, which bears in form a distinct resemblance to amendment No. 6. Lest any of my right hon. or hon. Friends should think that the protagonists of amendment No. 6 have copied amendment No. 68, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that amendment No. 6 came first in time.
There is a strong and logical case for a democratically elected body in the metropolitan counties at least to fulfil the functions that under the Bill are to be fulfilled by joint boards. During the debates in Committee a strong case was


made for adding trading standards to those functions. However, whatever may be the strength of the case for elected bodies in the metropolitan counties, I suggest that there is a much more substantial case in London. There is a case for a democratically elected county-wide body wherever a substantial body of services has to be administered on a county-wide basis, but the case for such a body is overwhelming where the county is a capital city and corresponds with the built-up area of the city. Every one of the major towns in the metropolitan counties, even after the Bill is passed, will have an elected authority that covers the built-up area of that town. To London alone is reserved the fate of being cut up administratively into 33 separate slices.
During the debate on clause 1, and also on Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Ministers asked what functions should be exercised by a London-wide body. First, the Secretary of State should consider the powers that he will exercise under the Bill. He is taking over sole responsibility for the strategic planning of London. The first function that an elected London-wide body should fulfil is as a voice for London in strategic planning for London.
The Government have confirmed that strategic planning remains fundamentally important in their thinking on how towns and cities should be planned. In the Bill, neither London as a whole nor the London boroughs will have any say in the formulation of the strategic guidance that would be the basis for unitary development plans in London. An elected body should prepare strategic plans for London which should be considered by the Secretary of State before strategic guidance is given to the boroughs. That is a fundamental task which the Select Committee and Parliament should consider allocating to the elected London-wide body that my amendment would set up.
8 pm
London should have a say in the planning of the major roads of London. The Bill gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport unparalleled powers to trunk roads without any form of public inquiry. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that any subsequent improvements will be subject to planning applications, but once the status of the road is changed a fundamental change of character has occurred and the right of the citizen to object is substantially pre-empted. One of the functions of the London-wide body would be to present a plan for the roads of London as part of the strategic plan for London. That addition to the planning process would go a long way to render unnecessary the Bill's draconian powers of trunking.

Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the metropolitan counties, all the present procedures will be applicable in future? Proposals will go to public consultation, there will be participation exercises, lines will be produced, objections will come in and public inquiries will be held. There will be no change in the participation of the public as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Ground: That is not right. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to trunk roads without any public inquiry. He already has powers to trunk roads with a public inquiry. The people of London will have no means of

challenging the thinking behind the trunking of roads. If my hon. Friend compares his status as an objector at a subsequent planning inquiry with that which he would have had at an inquiry into the trunking proposals, he will see that there is a fundamental and important constitutional and practical difference.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. and learned Friend emphasise that those of us who are known to be less than enthusiastic about the Bill have been inundated with letters from people in Greater London who are extremely exercised on this issue?

Mr. Ground: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he has had letters, I ask him to imagine how many I have had from Richmond, Clapham and many parts of south London.
The Bill recognises that fire and civil defence can be run only on a London-wide basis. If there were an elected authority, it would be sensible for those functions to remain with it.

Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned fire. Surely what people want from a fire brigade is not democracy but efficiency.

Mr. Ground: My hon friend is right but I think that he will agree, as his constituency is near an airport, that there is considerable anxiety about the fire service and people are much happier to have an elected body responsible for these matters. That has been the case for many years.

Mr. John Wheeler: Surely my hon. and learned Friend accepts that fire cover and the standards set for the fire brigade in London and elsewhere are governed by the Home Office and the chief inspector of the fire service. Locally elected councillors do not decide what service there will be.

Mr. Ground: My hon. Friend is correct and I dissociate myself from any propaganda which suggests that the fire service will be cut after reorganisation, but the fact remains that the service has been under democratic control for many years. It is an important part of our system that democratic bodies take responsibility for such matters.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has made it to the Front Bench."] I am merely a lodger here for a few moments.
The Labour GLC restored cuts made by the previous Conservative GLC in the fire brigade, including providing another appliance in the hon and learned Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Ground: I can only say that it took a very long time to do it.
My right hon. FrieZnd theZ SeZcreZtary of State asked what functions should be exercised by an elected London-wide body. Mineral planning is of great importance to London. If my right hon. Friend reads any report produced for his Department on the subject in the past 15 years he will find that they all say that mineral planning should be the responsibility of a county-wide body. He will have the guidance on that subject necessary to make a judgment.
The picture is similar with refuse disposal, especially with making satisfactory arrangements for sites. In clause 9, my right hon. Friend is taking powers to do that himself wheZn difficultieZs ariseZ. HeZ could beZ saveZd that


difficult task as theZ job is preZ-eZmineZntly one for a London-wide body, as an elected body might be able to solve more easily the many problems which are likely to arise in the immediate future.
I shall deal with the Southbank. The Royal Festival Hall, the Queen Elizabeth Hall, the National Theatre and the National Film Theatre were dealt with by the Committee in one brisk morning. The Committee approved their transfer to a national quango in the form of the Arts Council. If there is to be an elected London-wide body those buildings and the GLC's role in connection with theZm should sureZly beZ within its functions.
Many of theZ GLC's functions areZ locateZd in boroughs but cost much moreZ than a borough is willing to speZnd. TheZy areZ of greZat London-wideZ importanceZ. HampsteZad heZath is an eZxampleZ. It costs £1·25 million a year to maintain predominantly in a borough which does not wish to be responsible for it after the abolition of the GLC.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Could not Hampstead heath well be looked after as a royal park—such parks are dealt with effectively and efficiently—thereby overcoming the problem of splitting the heath between three separate boroughs?

Mr. Ground: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I am sure that he is right when he suggests that that would be a more acceptable solution to those who live in the area. However, that is not the proposal in the Bill. If we compare the proposals in the Bill with the possibility of the heath continuing to be administered by a London-wide body, there is no doubt that it would be preferable if it were run by such a body. TheZ SeZleZct Committee which the amendment envisages could advise on these and many other functions, and all the functions that I have mentioned would be candidates for consideration.
Several hon. Members have asked whether the amendment would create a mini GLC which in time would turn into another fully fledged GLC. My answer is twofold. First, if the GLC has played a wider role than Parliament intended, that is, at least in part, the fault of Parliament for giving the GLC powers that were too wide and too ill-defined. Secondly, if Parliament wished to create an elected London-wide body with limited powers, it could do so and could eZnsureZ that the powers were limited. It would be thoroughly feeble of the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends to conclude that it was impossible, and that they were unable, by legislation, to create a body with limited powers. That would be an abdication of their role, both as Government and as legislators.
I strongly support the amendment and hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will do so as well.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I intervene at this stage, because, as I think the House recognises, this debate deals with one of the crucial issues in the Bill. Indeed, amendment No. 6, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) referred, would, if carried, defeat one of the main aims of the Bill. It would, therefore, be helpful if the Government's view is clearly restated and the reasons for it clearly spelt out. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will reply at the end of the debate and deal with any points which are made after I sit down.
Before I come to the arguments attractively advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, I must make it clear that amendment No. 68, moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), must be rejected outright. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Labour party has steadfastly and rightly refused to give any pledge to restore the six metropolitan county councils. No doubt the hon. Gentleman came under strong pressure from a number of sources. Amendment No. 68 seeks to restore those county councils under some other guise by converting the residuary bodies into upper-tier elected authorities. What has happened to the firm resolve of the hon. Member for Copeland? Is it just a sop to his critics, or has the hon. Gentleman now changed his mind about the metropolitan counties?
The hon. Gentleman will know that any suggestion that the metropolitan counties should be restored at a later date would be bitterly opposed by many Labour Members and district councils and by virtually every Conservative Member for whom the return to single-tier government in the metropolitan counties has been an ambition for some years. I therefore reject that amendment and ask the House to do so.
8.15 pm
The argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has been advanced both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. He argued that London is different. It has been said that London has a history of two-tier local government and of a London-wide body of some sort. On that basis, my hon. and learned Friend argues that there should be an elected successor to the GLC.
Most of those who advance that argument—from the way my hon. and learned Friend spoke, I am sure that he would accept this view—would acknowledge that the GLC, which we have had for the last 21 years, has not worked and that in any event there must be changes. The Conservative leader at county hall, Councillor Alan Greengross, has been very firm in his view that the GLC, as we know it today, must be abolished, but replaced by another directly-elected London-wide authority.
As the House knows, the leaders in the majority of London boroughs, supported by their councils, have argued consistently not only for the abolition of the GLC but for no replacement body. Until a few years ago, that was the view espoused by Mr. Livingstone himself, when he said:
I do not conceive of the GLC as local in any sense. I feel that the boroughs are the major instruments of local government in London. I very much regret that Mr. Cutler has not been the really ruthless Tory that he likes to project and come forward with the biggest axe of all and axed the whole appalling show.
I should also draw the attention of my hon. Friends to a resolution passed at a recent well attended meeting of the Conservative Greater London area council, which stated:
That this Area Council supports the abolition of the Greater London Council and in conformity with the expressed views of the leaders of Conservative-controlled London boroughs would not wish to see that principle weakened by any elected forum for Greater London imposed over the structure of borough government".
That resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of that well attended meeting.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the resolution moved by Ruislip-Northwood Conservative Association at the


Greater London area CPC conference last year at the time of the debate on "Streamlining the Cities," which called for a directly-elected London-wide body? That was overwhelmingly carried by a majority of five to one. Surely London is different. Newcastle, Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham and the other big cities in the metropolitan counties will continue to have city-wide elected government, whereas London will be denied it and will have only borough representation.

Mr. Jenkin: I should point out that the motion to which I referred was carried by the fully representative body of the Conservative party in London only last week. That indicates that perhaps the Government are winning the argument.
A number of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies outside London should perhaps have some regard to the expression of view by those of our party representing the 84 constituencies in London.

Mr. Dykes: Bearing in mind the total membership in London, how many people were at that annual general meeting?

Mr. Jenkin: About 180, and the motion was carried by a majority of more than 10 to one, so I think that it was an effective expression of opinion on behalf of the Conservative party in London.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I will not give way. I should like to develop my argument.
This is not a new argument stirred up in the past year or two. The 1963 Act purported to be a new deal for London, but it must now be seen against the long history of dispute as to the kind of local government that London should have.
The history of local government in London for the past century or more has been a ceaseless struggle between those who have sought more powers for a so-called London-wide body and those who wanted power for the boroughs. The establishment of the London county council in 1889 was a clear victory for the centralisers. Ten years later, Lord Salisbury sought to establish a counterpoise for the boroughs—at that time, the inner London boroughs only.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed that the argument has been flowing to and fro. Why does he not concede that only a few years ago he was on the other side of the argument? When he gave evidence to the Marshall inquiry into the government of London, both he and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government made a formidable case in support of a strategic authority for London. What has changed?

Mr. Jenkin: We now have more experience of how the Greater London council has operated.
In the following decades, since the beginning of the century, three county boroughs were established outside inner London—Croydon, East Ham and West Ham. All were all-purpose authorities. The Herbert commission also noted that in Middlesex at least 10 authorities had a good claim to county borough status.
Herein lies the paradox. It was the Herbert commission which established the GLC, but it was also the Herbert commission which recognised the full claims of the

London boroughs and, for the first time in London's history — I stress that point — established the comprehensive pattern of most-purpose boroughs that we have today. Apart from inner London, where education remains with the ILEA, all London boroughs— inner and outer—are now most-purpose authorities. They are responsible for the overwhelming majority of services in those areas, they spend the overwhelming preponderance of ratepayers' money on local authority services and they are now the true focus of local government in London.
By contrast, the GLC, set up by the same Act, was from the outset a pale shadow of its predecessor, the LCC. It had all the panoply and trappings of power, but very few of the services that would justify that power. The GLC has had status without a role. The 1964 reforms shifted the balance decisively in favour of the London boroughs, and from that there can be no turning back. The seeds of the GLC's demise were planted at the very moment of its birth.
The past 20 years have seen the consequences of trying to run a two-tier local government system in London with almost all the services and almost all the powers at the lower level but with conflicting and overlapping powers at the upper level. Each tier claims a mandate from the electorate for its policies and each tier is determined to impose its will on the other. We can now see that this was and is bound to be a recipe for conflict and confusion. In terms of services, I do not believe that the case for a separate, directly elected upper tier of local government in London stands up.
We all agree that housing should be a borough function and that, apart from the trunk road network, highways construction and maintenance are borough functions. We all agree that in outer London education should remain a borough function and we all agree now that transport is rightly under LRT and outside local government altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not agree."] Well, on this side we all agree.
In terms of services, we are left with fire and civil defence. I do not see how it can be argued that we need a directly elected authority to run those two services. A joint authority made up of borough members can do the job just as well at less expense.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: No, I shall not give way.
Those who argue for a London-wide body claim, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston did with customary force, that there is a crucial role for such a body in highways and land use planning. But is it not clear, after 21 years' experience of the GLC, that the Greater London area is an artificial basis for planning and policy? Is it not clear that London, the capital city of the nation, is the focus for government, business, commerce, shopping, the arts, the theatre and many other services appropriate to such a city and that its influence stretches far beyond the outer boundaries of the GLC area?

Mr. Tony Banks: Let us have a bigger GLC then.

Mr. Jenkin: Is it not clear that all the major planning and transport decisions fall inevitably not to the GLC but to the Government and to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I invite the Opposition to consider this. Where does London begin and end? [HON. MEMBERS: "In Marsham Street."]
The M25 motorway is almost entirely outside the GLC boundaries, but that was arguably one of the most far-reaching transport decisions affecting the capital. Let us consider airports. I do not want to get involved in the decision about London's third airport, but would anyone seriously argue that that decision could or should be taken by whoever is in charge at county hall? London's highway network does not begin or end at the Greater London boundary. London is the heart of a national network of highways stretching from the south-west, the west country and Wales, the west midlands, the east midlands, East Anglia and Kent right into the heart of London. How can that be the subject of planning by the GLC?
Let us consider planning within London. Has the GLC scored any notable successes in the past 20 years—for instance, in the revival of London's docklands, the rebuilding of the south bank or the planning of London's traffic?

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: No, I shall not give way.
What happens when the GLC decides that traffic management must serve the interests of Londoners without heed to those coming into London? Many of my hon. Friends protested vigorously about the arrogant decision to introduce a right turn at Talgarth road in Hammersmith. The traffic jams stretched right back into the heart of Berkshire.
There is a need for planning, transport and traffic to be considered over a wider area, but they are not matters on which a directly elected authority for the Greater London area can play a worthwhile role.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: No, I shall not give way.
Other mechanisms — for example, the standing conference—recognise London's role as a capital city and its impact on the south-east, and those mechanisms are essential, but the problems will not be solved by the recreation, in however skeletal a form, of a GLC mark II.
I therefore ask my hon. Friends again what it is that they want a London-wide body to do. Caught, as it would be, between the pincers of the comprehensive all-purpose powers of the boroughs and the wider planning and highways role that properly falls to the Government and to the House, where can there be a worthwhile role for a London-wide body? Indeed, if there is no worthwhile role, who will serve on it? Do not my hon. Friends realise that, whatever my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston says to the contrary, that proposal will re-create a body which, just like the GLC, invents for itself functions in order to justify its existence?
I have read, re-read and discussed endlessly the proposals put forward by Councillor Greengross and other members of the GLC. I have to say that I cannot understand the argument which says, "Yes, the GLC must be abolished, but in its place we must establish a new elected body with most of its functions retained."
Those who have seen the booklet of Mr. Greengross will know that he listed no fewer than 27 separate functions, which he argued should be the responsibility of the successor body. How could that conceivably be different from what we have at present, and which we all recognise has not worked? Therefore, I say in all candour to my hon. Friends that I do not believe that the case for an elected London-wide body has been made.
8.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who has apologised for his absence, put forward proposals to involve the House either through a Select Committee or through a Grand Committee or both to take a closer interest in those wider aspects of government as they affect London. Any such decision must be a matter not for this Bill, but for the House of Commons, to be discussed through the usual channels. I would say only this. Any such London Select Committee would sit uneasily alongside the pattern of departmental Select Committees which were set up after 1979. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue his proposal through the appropriate channels. It is clearly not for me to give him a "yea" or "nay" this evening.
Others of my hon. Friends may well argue that there is a role for the London Boroughs Association in speaking for the London borough as a whole. That could be so. There is nothing in the Bill which precludes the boroughs building on the existing machinery, and, indeed, it could well grow in importance when it is not overshadowed by a GLC.
I must end by making it abundantly clear to the House that the Government are firmly opposed to replacing the GLC with an elected body, a body with executive functions, or a body capable of precepting on the boroughs. We see no need for such a body. We see no role for such a body. If amendment No. 6 is pressed to a Division, I must ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to oppose it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State thought that his early intervention would be helpful in persuading his right hon. and hon. Friends of his view, he was sadly deceiving himself. He argued in circles from the position in which he has placed himself. His case tonight was slightly different from previously. It was that matters must now be considered on a regional basis wider than London, yet the solution to who would be that regional authority was himself and his Department.
No Conservative Members can honestly believe, whatever the arguments about the right sort of local government, that we want local government to be replaced by this Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, for many years the Secretary of State has taken a line opposite to that which he now argues. He is the representative of undemocratic government. I notice that he wears the tie of the London Docklands Development Corporation—a quango set up in the last few years. He comes to the House as Mr. Central Government. Ranged against him are these amendments and people whom I have asked him to recognise are not the extremists against democracy, but extremists for democracy, among whom not many years ago he would have wished to be numbered.
In London, a poster shows the picture of two of the Secretary of State's right hon. Friends, underneath which it says:
Not all the critics of ratecapping are Left-wing extremists?
One amendment in this group is in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr.
Benyon), the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), and two of their hon. Friends. They are hardly a group of extremists.
Other amendments in the group are in the names of the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Even their own party would hardly regard them as extremists. Finally, two of the amendments are in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), and my hon. Friends the Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and myself. We are hardly regarded as the most extreme of politicians.
Ranged against the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues is that amazing coalition of people, until now respected for being central in their parties and in their parties' thinking. They have argued abundantly clearly and consistently for democracy.

Mr. Richard Tracey: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman list all those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Perhaps he will tell me where they are this evening while this important debate is taking place?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman need not be worried for a moment. They will be present in substantial numbers to show that the Government have far from overwhelming support for their position.
I ask the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to get himself and his party out of the mess of their own hasty making. There are three questions before the House. First, should we provide an elected successor authority for London — that amendment has been tabled by Conservative Members — or should we provide a successor authority for London and the Metropolitan counties — the amendments tabled by Opposition Members. Secondly, should there be an elected successor body, whether it is called a residual body or something else? Thirdly, if so, what should it do?
The first question reveals the view that, as London is a capital city, it has a stronger case than the metropolitan counties. That is a view that I share with many others. This argument bears repeating, because it is so self-evident. If the Government go ahead with their proposal, we shall be the only capital city in western Europe without a governing authority.
The Government's announcement that to accept these proposals would defeat the main aims of the Bill because they would prevent there being a single-tier government in London is wrong on three counts. First, it is untrue to say that as a result of the Government's proposals there will be no single-tier government. The Secretary of State knows that we will have many tiers of government—joint boards, quangos, himself and local boroughs. That is not single-tier government and, therefore, this premise is fundamentally false.
Secondly, this premise is inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will not be single-tier government in the shire counties of England after the Bill is passed. There is no principle that is so fundamental that it says that there must inevitably be single-tier government in a metropolitan area, especially when boundaries are

unclear, and at the same time that in all other areas, some of which were proposed by Royal Commissions, such as the Hampshire area around Southampton, there should be two tiers of government.
Thirdly, is it justified? The answer to that is no, because the opinion of most professionals, be they officers of authorities or experts, given to all those who have considered this matter in Committee and elsewhere in the House, is clearly that there are many strong arguments for services being run on a county-wide basis. In Committee the Government were challenged time after time to tell us who supported their case, to say which royal institutions, chartered surveyors, town planners or associations of architects supported them. The answer time after time was no one. The Government have been given an opportunity tonight to introduce a system of deliberations during which a group of parliamentarians can take evidence from people who know what they are talking about, free from the political prejudice which inevitably affects all of us in this place. The Government have been given the chance to ensure that the people of this capital city and, if necessary, of the metropolitan counties can have local government with the right level of services.
Several hon. Members have listed the services which the public clearly do not want the Government to remove from democratically elected local authorities. Airports, transport and trunking are obvious places to start. There is an obvious case for those services not to be subject to centrally imposed decisions. Planning, fire services, civil defence and the police are also obvious cases. I understand that the Minister for Local Government, having talked to the leaders of the Tory boroughs, is extremely worried about the proposals for waste disposal—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: No.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. The present strategic plan for waste disposal in London might well blow up in the face of the right hon. Gentleman and his departmental colleagues. At meetings in his Department he has expressed concern that joint boards are probably unsuitable for waste disposal services in London, and that a single level authority would be equally unacceptable. If there are, as he anticipates, deaths because people pour one chemical into a pit where others are present, because of a lack of a co-ordinated strategy, he knows that he will be responsible for the fatal deterioration of an excellent service.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Perhaps I could correct the information which the hon. Gentleman has heard at second hand. Our first debate tomorrow will relate to waste disposal, and I shall introduce proposals which the Conservative borough leaders put to me and found satisfactory for waste disposal in the Greater London area.

Mr. Hughes: That shows yet again that the Government are thinking on the hoof. There is no co-ordination at all. Although there may be piecemeal improvement, it would be much better to follow the suggestions made by Conservative Back-Bench Members or by the alliance that there should be wholesale consideration of planning for the future after the GLC.
We could have had many arguments tonight on a Bill which has been rushed through the House. The Bill, which deals with arts, sport, the police, law and order, housing and the environment, has been guillotined, but the Government know that that will not be the case in the


House of Lords. Would it not be better to think again? Should hon. Members not say, "Let us have the opportunity of listening to expert argument and advice"? If we cannot win the simple argument, because the Government have set their face against it, for continuing the present authorities in a similar form—I realise that no one can defend every jot and tittle of what they do—let us at least have the opportunity to argue logically, quietly, intelligently and consistently, freed from timetables and the harassment of the present position, for what we believe is a necessary tier of strategic government in the regions and in London.
I end with this warning. The Government have been told repeatedly that if they abolish the seven counties in haste, politically, democratically, and in terms of services to our people, they will repent that abolition at their leisure.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I wish to make a few comments on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We all have great respect for him, and great sympathy for him over the Bill, but he did not meet the case for the amendment at any point in his speech. He did not meet the case in one fundamental way, because he did not explain why London should be different from almost every other major capital city and be deprived of a directly elected authority. As far as I know, he did not mention the point at all.
8.45 pm
It is astonishing—this is a serious matter that touches not only the government of London but deep springs of Conservative philosophy—that the Government cannot answer the fundamental criticism that, instead of their local authority legislation decentralising services, it is centralising them. We must know what is so unique about London that it is not allowed to have a directly elected authority.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I shall try not to intervene in his speech too often. I said that, as can be found in other capital cities that have indirectly nominated bodies to represent the entire city, the London Boroughs Association, not overshadowed by the GLC, could achieve greater importance and could represent what my right hon. Friend is seeking in his rather emotional arguments. No doubt he will come to this point, but I must ask him what such a body would do.

Sir Ian Gilmour: It is not an emotional argument at all; it is a fundamental argument. The idea that a quango or an association such as the LBA could be a substitute for a proper directly elected authority is extraordinary. I differ fundamentally from my right hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the London Boroughs Association has a built-in Socialist majority, which may not be a good thing? Does he also realise that, interestingly, 11 Socialist boroughs have seceded from it?

Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking an admirably non-party view on these matters, which my hon. Friend and I are unable to take.
My right hon. Friend said that during the past 100 years there had been a great history of conflict between centralisers and localisers. As far as I know, that is a complete myth. The suggestion has no historical basis. My right hon. Friend referred to what Lord Salisbury said in 1899, but he omitted to say that Lord Salisbury had set up the London county council in 1888. Most of those who have studied the history of local government during the past 100 years do not accept that there has been a great conflict between centralisers and localisers, and my right hon. Friend, who has good eyes, should see it too.
My right hon. Friend said that it was wrong to have a directly elected authority because it was difficult to ascertain the boundaries of London. That is not a serious argument. Every capital city has a similar problem, because no capital city is built on an island. They all have many districts. That argument applies not only to London but to any local authority. The difficulty of defining boundaries is no argument against having a directly elected authority. With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot believe that that was a serious argument.
We return to the question of why London is different. My right hon. Friend's other argument—it seemed to be his only argument — was that if we had a directly elected authority we would have Mr. Ken Livingstone back. He seemed to believe that, however strictly the statute was drawn, somehow Mr. Ken Livingstone would rear his ugly head again. With great respect, that is a confession of impotence by my right hon. Friend, who is extremely skilled at drafting legislation. The idea that he cannot draft legislation without bringing back Mr. Livingstone is absurd.
We have not had a single serious argument to explain why the thoroughly Conservative idea of not giving great powers to the Secretary of State has not been followed. As I have said before, the Bill specifies 123 powers for my right hon. Friend — hardly a particularly Conservative thing to do—and is hardly a great measure for local government. The Bill concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State and gives great powers not to the boroughs but to collections of boroughs, which are not local bodies.
I do not think, although my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government might be able to produce an argument, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is serious in his arguments. I cannot help feeling that he must have great sympathy with the amendment. One of the faults of this Government, if they have a fault, is that they sometimes confuse obstinacy with strength. I can see no reason for the Government not giving way to this amendment. It is in tune with the history of the country and of Conservative ideas, and with practicality. The Government will bequeath the most appalling problems to London government if they do not give way on this amendment. I hope that, unless we are given a serious argument on this matter, my hon. Friends will support the amendment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I shall not go back to Lord Salisbury for my quote, nor to 1898. I start by quoting from 1971, when a right hon. Member said about a Bill to reform local government:
When the Bill reaches the Statute Book and the new authorities come into operation, we shall have ended the uncertainty which has bedevilled local government since the war. We shall have strengthened local democratic institutions so that they operate more successfully and efficiently and have a greater impact on their localities."—[Official Report, 16 November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 249.]
Those are the words of the present Secretary of State for Energy, who was then the Secretary of State for the Environment and responsible for the local government reorganisation that established the metropolitan counties.
The Secretary of State for the Environment chided my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the Labour party's policy towards the metropolitan counties, let alone to the Greater London council. I remind him that the reform being referred to in my quote came about as the result of continuing inquiry. As the then Secretary of State for the Environment said, this problem had bedevilled Governments since the war. After 1945, there were many inquiries, which culminated in the Redcliffe-Maud report of 1969.
In February 1970, the then Labour Government published a White Paper. That Government lost power in the following June, but in 1971, the Conservative Government published another White Paper. The Secretary of State for the Environment was a member of that Government and was telling people that they should learn to clean their teeth in the dark. Redcliffe-Maud and the two White Papers had one thing in common. They all agreed that there should be metropolitan counties to deal with the overspill problems and many other services required in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has not changed his mind. Although he tells the House that he wishes to diversify the functions of local government to the more local district level, the Bill ensures that 67 per cent. of expenditure by the metropolitan counties will go not to borough or district councils but to joint boards. No less than 76 per cent. of the expenditure of Merseyside is to go to a joint board.
The Secretary of State talks about the inevitable recipe for conflict and controversy resulting from the two-tier structure, of the GLC arguing with the London boroughs, and the Merseyside county council arguing with the district councils. Can one conceive of a situation in which Councillor Hatton in Liverpool and Councillor Ron Watson in Sefton will join hands across the joint boards for passenger transport, the police or fire service on Merseyside and be real buddies? The Secretary of State's proposal is a recipe for conflict, and not even a democratic one.
The electors require a clear decision so that they can understand who is responsible. They want to know that they have played a part in determining who is responsible for services. That is why residuary bodies, although I dislike both the term and the reality, will have to be elected by the people in their area, and should be responsible for the services that the Government, even at this late stage, have not determined should be the function of any particular authority.
For example, for the arts on Merseyside, we still do not know who is to be responsible for giving assistance to the Empire and Playhouse theatres, or what is to happen to the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra, let alone the Philharmonic hall. I am sure that Councillor Hatton, who had to close the St. Georges hall, will not be able to find the funds, after the Government have finished with Liverpool, to maintain the Philharmonic hall.
We have not heard which body is to be responsible for economic development on Merseyside. I am still the chairman of the Merseyside economic development corporation. This body has generated 8,000 new jobs on Merseyside—a drop in the ocean when compared with the 100,000 jobs that have been lost since May 1979 when the daughter of darkness entered No. 10 Downing street. We do not know, and the Secretary of State should tell the House and the business community on Merseyside, what is to happen to the county help for active small enterprise scheme after his changes. Who is to make the decisions about the help to be given to small businesses on Merseyside? I do not believe that has been mentioned in Committee. However, the Merseyside chamber of commerce is entitled to know the answer to that question.
The Government have recently emphasised the assistance that has been given to Merseyside through the Merseyside economic development corporation. They recognise the need for such a body, even though it is a quango. We still do not know which body will be responsible for co-ordinating tourism in the area. Certainly it will not be an elected body. From time to time the Secretary of State visits Merseyside and says that the prospects there for tourism are good. We should like to know what will happen. The people of Merseyside recognise the role that has been played by the county council. It has acted as a catalyst in developing the tourist potential in the area. I refer to the small ships race and to the museums and art galleries. We do not yet know what is to happen to the satellite museums, although we know what is to happen to the Walker art gallery.
9 pm
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who is no longer in his place, referred in an intervention to his belief that people do not want a democratically elected fire service; they want an efficient fire service. I prefer to stand by the principle enunciated many years ago by a Liberal Prime Minister, Campbell-Bannerman. I believe, with him, that self-government is better than good government. It is far better for people to make their own mistakes and for those mistakes to be rectified in a democratic manner. I need go no further than the debate in the House on 16 November 1971 on the reorganisation of local government. The present Secretary of State for Energy said then that he believed it was right for the newly reformed local government to be on the basis that those making the decisions should go through the process of democratic election. The right hon. Gentleman was right in 1971. I think that he would be right now. He is always described as the wettest property in the Cabinet. He should have the guts to say whether he holds to the view that he stated in 1971.
If the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks that Merseysiders and local government officers will co-operate in administering a regime that has no democratic basis, I am afraid that he has another think coming. Even if the Bill is passed by next July he will be unable to


implement its provisions by April 1986. There will be such chaos that the next Labour Government will be left to pick up the pieces, if we can find them, early in 1987 or 1988. We shall restore democracy to local government in the metropolitan areas. Certain Conservative Members believe that there is a strong case for democratic government of the capital of the United Kingdom. They should also look very carefully at the amendment which seeks to create democratic local government in the metropolitan authorities, which face many of the problems and difficulties experienced by London. They should join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight not only on their amendment, which I applaud wholeheartedly, but on the amendment which seeks to ensure that there will be democratic local government in our metropolitan conurbations.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a very strange remark. He said that people would rather have bad government than self-government.

Mr. Wareing: I did not say that.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That is what it sounded like. If the hon. Gentleman would care to repeat what he said, I should be grateful.

Mr. Wareing: Because the hon. Gentleman is so far away in the Yukon of the House, he did not hear what I said. I said that self-government is better than good government. It was a quotation from Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal Prime Minister.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As it was quoted in relation to the fire service, people will be saying that when they are dead and that will not do them much good.
The hon. Member for West Derby said that the mess would have to be cleared up by a Labour Government in 1987 or 1988. I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the parliamentary records relating to the reform of London local government in 1963–64. The Labour party then threatened that the social services and the children's services would not be given to the new London boroughs. The Labour Government had time to make a change, but they did not. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes his threats in good faith, but they are empty threats because a Labour Government will not be elected in 1987 or 1988. In addition, if there were a Labour Government, they would not want to change the system because the single tier authorities—the districts and the boroughs—do not want an upper tier authority.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) to our debate. If he bothers to read the history of London local government for the past 80 years, he will realise that there has been constant conflict between the metropolitan borough councils and the London county council and between the London boroughs and the GLC. All academic writers on the subject make that point.
My right hon. Friend was wrong. London borough council officials, after the formation of the GLC, said that the new GLC was just as much a "Big Brother" as the old LCC was to the metropolitan boroughs. The latest proposals provide us with the first opportunity to prevent the conflict that we have experienced for years and which has been to the detriment of the people of London.

Mr. Denis Howell: When power resides in two authorities, whatever they are, there will always be conflict, and it is right that there should be. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is saying that the conflict, which has long existed between the boroughs and the GLC and its predecessor, the LCC, will turn into conflict between the boroughs and the Government of the day. That will be much worse.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not attempt to discuss the west midlands and Birmingham. I do not believe that the London Boroughs Association, which, contrary to certain remarks, is controlled by the Conservative party, will be engaged in conflict with central Government.
I want to address my remarks more to my right hon. Friends than to Opposition Members. The Opposition are wholly unreconstructed. The debates in 1963 and 1964 about the abolition of the LCC show that the Labour party has not advanced one iota since then. It is still living in a land of make believe. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the Opposition would co-operate if the Government set up a Royal Commission or an inquiry. But what happened between the Herbert commission and the implementation of legislation? There was precious little co-operation between the Labour-controlled LCC and central Government. The hon. Gentleman would be unable to deliver any more than the Labour party was willing to deliver in those days.
The Liberal party spokesman, who has disappeared into thin air, will not mind me saying that the Liberals have little interest in a higher tier of government for London. The last Liberal who understood, because he had a broad vision, was Sir Percy Harris, who served more than 30 years ago. The Liberal party at county hall has not distinguished itself in any thinking since then.
London has never wanted overall London government. Perhaps I have spanned the sectors of the party, because I was appointed as London spokesman for the Conservative party by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and reappointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I seem to enjoy the confidence of both segments of the Conservative party, at least with regard to London.
I do not believe that one can compare the position of the capital city of London with that of, for example, Paris or Rome. A person from Paris calls himself a Parisien. However, if one talks to the average citizen of Hampstead or Sutton, he does not say that he is a Londoner; he says that he comes from Hampstead or Sutton. Indeed, in Hampstead, a person will start arguing about the village from which he came. There is Belsize village, town ward, and other places. In that sense, London is not the entity that many people try to pretend it is. London is far more a collection of independent authorities than a capital city.
What is London? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly showed why the idea of a London-wide body was unnecessary, irrespective of comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who probably did not follow the arguments that were being put forward. Is London the area covered by the Thames water authority? Is it the area covered by London Regional Transport, the Greater London council or the Metropolitan police? We have always had that problem in London. It used to be the LCC area. Then there was the London postal region and the London


telecommunications region. No one has ever satisfactorily defined what London is. What I am trying to say is that in the end the average Londoner is far more concerned and interested in his own borough council than in a vast amorphous body.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that all cities are organic. They grow and diminish in their scope. What makes the boundary of a London borough any more precise in its adefinition than that of London as a whole? I do not understand.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As I develop my argument, I may help the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he is now publicly chairman-elect of the GLC.

Mr. Banks: I am.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that will be the GLC's gain and our loss. We shall have to see what the year produces.

Mr. Banks: I shall remain a Member of Parliament.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will be neglecting his proper duties and proving that there is no need for a chairman of the GLC, which is the point that I would make. The hon. Gentleman has made that point for me and I am grateful to him.
The boroughs are closer to the people than the upper tier. Those who oppose abolition and those who want a voice for London are not always the same people. My friend Alan Greengross, who represents Hampstead on the GLC, is wholly with me in wanting the abolition of the GLC but not wholly with me when he says that he wants a substitute body. I do not believe that he has thought through what the consequences of that substitute body would be. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State never mentioned the re-creation of Ken Livingstone; he merely said that in the end there were no worthwhile functions although Alan Greengross listed 23.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall give way in half a second to my distinguished constituent, one of 26 Labour Members of Parliament whom I seek to represent.
I was going to say that those same people also tend to call for a Royal Commission so that the matter can be fully investigated.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has said that he differs from the view of Mr. Alan Greengross. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the principal arguments that he is concerned about is the future control of Hampstead heath, where the hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be such a deserter and where so few of his constituents support him? Is not Mr. Greengross advocating a proper solution to that problem, whereas the hon. Gentleman has no solution whatsoever?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not bother to read the Hampstead and Highgate Express. If he will be patient, he will hear me talk about Hampstead heath. I am glad that he followed my call to his Labour GLC to remove the tinkers who occupied the heath on two occasions.
There has been a call for a Royal Commission to look at this matter again. We had a Royal Commission 20 years ago. It reported, and the facts have not changed. The Herbert commission suggested that the top tier should cover matters that have now been lost—the ambulance service, housing and transport, which was flogged to the GLC and rightly removed recently. There is little left to make it worth creating a London-wide body. Those who hanker back to a Royal Commission or the Herbert report conveniently forget that the Royal Commission, after careful investigation, advocated that education should go to all the London boroughs, not just to the outer London boroughs.

Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Did not Mr. Greengross, having considered these matters, reach the conclusion that one reason why there should be a body in future was that one authority should be responsible for a place such as Hampstead heath? The Hampstead and Highgate Express, which is a fine newspaper, is passionately opposed to the hon. Gentleman's view. So are the overwhelming majority of his constituents. They want a single authority to do the job and many of the other jobs cited by hon. Members.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not arrange the order of my speech to suit the right hon. Gentleman, who does not represent Hampstead but who resides in a rather more lush part of Hampstead than I could afford. I know what my constituents say, and they do not follow the line of wanting a London-wide body. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, when we are discussing Welsh matters, I shall not interfere in his constituency.
I wish to talk about the propaganda that has been coming from the paid hacks at county hall, because people are beginning to believe some of the stories. I want to make it very clear that those closest to the citizens are the London borough councils. The Conservative majority on the London Boroughs Association has said clearly that it can run the services without an upper tier authority. That includes the leaders of Harrow and Hillingdon councils, who reiterated that a few weeks ago. They know what they want for their people.
The same misrepresentation has been put about regarding Hampstead heath, upon which I have walked for rather longer than most of those now prating about it. When I was a child I was taken on the heath, and I yield to no one in my love and admiration for it. But there is absolutely no reason why the dedicated people who look after the heath—not the councillors at county hall, but the hard-working park keepers—could not do exactly the same job for any authority that was responsible for the heath.
I shall come in a moment to what I said several months ago, when the Bill was first published, about the future of Hampstead heath, which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) would have heard had he attended a meeting of the Heath and Old Hampstead Society. It is clear that the Government have never said that giving management to the three territorial boroughs would mean splitting the heath. That has never been said and it has never been intended. It has been said by those who make propaganda from over the water, but it has never been said and was never intended by the Government. If that were so, I would violently oppose it, because that is not the way to do it.
There are two major issues—and here I answer the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent if he wishes to listen. First, Hampstead heath should be properly funded. That assurance has already been given repeatedly by Ministers. Secondly, its management should not be fragmented. That again is perfectly clear from what has been said repeatedly by Ministers. If it were not, I would be desperately unhappy. But the Government have never said anything different and, as the Member of Parliament representing Hampstead, I am satisfied with the assurance that I have had on those points. Both those objectives can be achieved without creating an elected London-wide body.
It may be—I have said this before, and I repeat it for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman—that the three-borough joint committee is not the ideal solution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I said that many months ago. Hon. Members who say "Ah!" have not bothered to listen. I put forward for consideration other ideas to my right hon. Friend, and I am glad that they have not finally been rejected.
I wish to put on record equally that the solution that has been found for Kenwood house is on the basis that I put to my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, and I very much welcome that decision. Indeed, it has been welcomed locally by my constituents and by the Friends of Kenwood.
I would be more impressed by some of the arguments that I have heard and some of the head shakings that I have noticed by some of my hon. Friends who seem to want a London-wide body if they had served in London local government and knew what it meant. It is clear that the number of London councillors representing numbers of wards must be closer to local matters than one person representing 60,000 or 70,000 people, whether he be a Member of Parliament or a GLC member. Local councillors are much closer in their appropriate matters that affect the people.
This is not a constitutional matter, despite all that we are hearing; it is a practical matter. There are three practical issues. First, how would London legislate for its problems in future if there were no overall body? It would legislate in future as it can now, through the London boroughs, one of which would be the lead borough. In much the same way, the general powers Bill of the GLC is only a vehicle for the London boroughs. The GLC puts in its own disclaimer on a substantial number of the legislative powers to the effect that the clause in question is being promoted at the request of the London Boroughs Association. Therefore, that is perfectly possible for the future of the London boroughs.
Secondly, how will London discuss issues of concern of a London-wide nature? It will do so through the London Boroughs Association, as it always has done perfectly adequately. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), in an intervention, spoke about the Association of Labour Authorities which has split away. All I can say is that that is a foolish and dangerous precedent for those boroughs. It would not take very much for the Conservative boroughs in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to do the same, and local government throughout the country would lose seriously. My friends in the old London county council area in the metropolitan boroughs lived for nearly 20 years under a Labour majority on the old metropolitan boroughs standing joint committee, but they did not walk away

because they had not got the bat to play. I hope that, sooner rather than later, the Labour boroughs in London will come back and realise that the only people they are harming are the constituents who are losing out because of this lack of joint consultation.
There are other problems, but they are of a limited nature, and time is also limited. But I can say that the boroughs are certain that they can manage. I wonder why my hon. Friends run down the London boroughs and disbelieve that they are capable of running themselves. Many London boroughs have a rateable value well in excess of some of the major cities in Britain, and they do not need a nanny above them to co-ordinate their affairs.
It has been said that far too many powers and functions are being handed over to the Government or to new quangos or that the reorganisation may cost more. That is not true. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to Alan Greengross's publication. It is a pity that in his publication, Mr. Cyril Taylor, a Conservative GLC member, gives credence to that fallacy. I could answer in my own words what he said, but instead I shall quote from a letter sent to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is perhaps in more diplomatic language than I might use. He said:
Councillor Taylor's pamphlet … purports to show that our abolition proposals are fundamentally flawed and will result, crucially, in higher costs for ratepayers. Yet the pamphlet is based on serious misrepresentations of our proposals and fundamental factual errors which make it impossible to take its conclusions seriously. For example, Councillor Taylor adds together accurate figures for the costs of some services—some of which apppear to have no basis in reality—in such a way as to under estimate greatly the proportion of GLC spending which will become the responsibility of the boroughs. The fact is that nearly three-quarters of the net current expenditure of the GLC before abolition will become the responsibility of the boroughs afterwards, and most of the rest will become the responsibility of the boroughs collectively in the joint fire and civil defence authority. Councillor Taylor goes on to predict unfair additional burdens on some boroughs as a result of abolition, despite the Government's clearly stated policy that the financial system will be adjusted to avoid undue gains and losses to authorities. In particular, contrary to what Councillor Taylor suggests, we shall help to achieve this by extending, in the abolition Bill, the London Rates Equalisation Scheme. Councillor Taylor also misunderstands our proposals on the apportioning of the cost of servicing outstanding debt. The effect of our proposals is to reproduce a very similar distribution of costs to the existing situation. For these reasons"—

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall give way in a moment. I have not failed to give way so far, but I shall do so in my own time.
The letter continues:
For these reasons, it would not be right to treat Councillor Taylor's arguments as a serious challenge to our own firm view that abolition will yield significant savings which will be of benefit to all Londoners.

Mr. Dykes: I do not want to make a long intervention, but unfortunately my hon. Friend, having commenced his speech just after 9 o'clock, could be accused of filibustering when many other hon. Members want to speak, and strongly, against the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that he is in danger of seriously misleading the House with that quotation when a respected official at county hall, J. Crockford, the director of finance, in paragraph three of a letter of 6 February 1985 to Cyril Taylor, who complained about assertions in the Minister's letter, said:


The Minister claims that three-quarters of GLC net current expenditure will become the responsibility of the-boroughs. This is a constantly repeated statement which I cannot avoid describing as seriously misleading.
Does my hon. Friend agree that for an official to use the phrase "seriously misleading" in an official letter is the strongest condemnation of a ministerial view which is guaranteed to misrepresent the situation?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) quotes from a letter of February. I have quoted from my right hon. Friend's letter of 26 March—a month and 20 days later. I prefer to rely upon the civil servants of the Department that I once had the honour to serve rather than upon anyone at county hall.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No. I am accused of speaking for too long.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East had attended the meetings of London Conservative Members, he would have had a chance to convince more of us. However, for the past year at any rate, he has not bothered to attend. That has been a great shame. We have missed him very much.
As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the overwhelming majority of London Conservative Members support the Bill and do not support the idea of an overall body. Conservative party members in Greater London at their AGM—the people who worked for the election of my hon. Friends, who attended the meeting the other day and who stand on doorsteps in order to get us elected—voted by about 170 to 17 that they did not want an overall body. The motion had been proposed by two borough leaders. Borough leaders throughout London have said that they do not want an upper tier.
Those are the people to whom we should listen. We have a duty to listen to them. Let us take no notice of the rubbish about how 74 per cent.—74 per cent. of 10,000 people—say no. I prefer to support the 1·5 million who said yes, at the general election, to getting rid of the GLC.

Mr. Foot: I am provoked into speaking by the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). I shall be brief because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate made an extraordinary speech. He sought to give the impression, in reference to Hampstead heath, that he speaks for a considerable section of his constituents. All those who have followed the controversy must know that the overwhelming view of the people of Hampstead and Highgate who wish to preserve the treasure of Hampstead heath and to protect it properly is that the Government's proposals are no good. Indeed, people are searching for a solution such as is suggested by the amendments.
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's present view is of how the heath should be controlled in the future. He said that there is no proposal to divide it into three. I understand that he is right about that. Even the present Government have not made so direct and mad a proposal as that, but they have done the next best thing. They have suggested that the future control of Hampstead heath

should be divided between three boroughs, none of which wants the responsibility. That is a recipe for the utmost confusion and for a failure to protect the heath.
Although those who live there derive great advantages from the heath, they are not the only ones who are interested in its protection, which is also a matter of concern to the people of London and, indeed, of a much wider area. Large numbers of people who visit London come to the heath. Its protection has been a difficult matter. It has been protected against people who wish to settle on it, against developers and against every form of threat and invasion. That is how the heath has been protected over the years and it is right that the House should take some note of what is said by those who genuinely want to protect it. We should take no note of what is said by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, who certainly does not represent his constituents on this matter, if indeed he still represents them on any subject. I hope that the Government will not listen to him.
There will probably be another chance to mention this matter tomorrow. I had assumed that it would not be discussed until then. This is an example of how the Bill is creating hazards that I doubt whether the Government even considered when they embarked on the enterprise.
We know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate was only shoved in at a late stage to prop up the Secretary of State who was becoming extremely confused over the Bill. He is quite a good prop, but with such a bad case as this even he seems to be collapsing under the weight. The Government did not even consider the future of Hampstead heath and similar facilities when they embarked on the Bill, and they have got into ever deeper confusion. Injury to the heath would be one of the many ridiculous and dangerous by-products of the Bill if the Government carry it through. I therefore hope that the Government will consider these amendments.
There are overwhelming reasons for accepting the amendments, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has said. I prophesy that if the Government determine to ram the Bill through the House and if they succeed in ramming it through another place, they will not be finished with it. Within three or four years the matter will have to be reconsidered because there will be great pressure and it will be seen that it is ridiculous to deprive London of a voice. The country will reconsider the case and we shall have to debate it all over again.
The Government have only to show a little grace and readiness to listen. I know that that is not the most notable quality of the Government. It is especially difficult for Ministers to think and act in those terms when they have the voice of the Prime Minister drilling in their ears all the time. It is difficult for Ministers to hear themselves think in such conditions. We understand their problem and sympathise with them greatly. If they all got together and went along to the Prime Minister tomorrow morning and told her that, of all the fat-headed ideas that she has tried to force on them, this is the worst and that at last even this Front Bench of worms will turn, they might be able to save the day. If they do not do that, they will have trouble after trouble in this Parliament, and possibly in the next one.
We shall eventually restore to London the voice and authority that it deserves. In the process, we shall fight to protect every inch of holy ground on Hampstead heath, even if we have no support from Conservatives.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot), but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of everyone on this side of the House personally and for this policy.
Amendment No. 68 is best described as the mark II GLC amendment. I dare say that some of my hon. Friends want it. I wish that they would tell us so. Those of my hon. Friends who do not support the mark H GLC but are inclined to support the amendment are being naive. Certain things happen when a democratically elected body has no role. We have an example on the other side of the Channel in the form of the European Assembly at Strasbourg. It has impeccable democratic credentials but, alas, some would say, it has no power. It is looking for power all its waking life and even in its dreams. If it gets powers, no doubt the appetite will grow with the feeding. It is living proof that the less power a democratically elected organisation has, the more posturing it goes about.
If we had a democratically elected successor body in London, I am quite sure that it would be a hothouse for political agitation. It would have no resources and would blame everyone else for anything that it did not like, especially if its political complexion was different from that of the Government of the day. It would have no responsibilities and no powers, and anything that went wrong would be somebody else's fault. That would be an occasion for great political posturing—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends seem to disagree, but at present the GLC has no responsibility for defence, yet it goes in for nuclear-free zones. If we set up an organisation such as that proposed, exactly the same will happen again. It will be a recipe for conflict, and we can do without it.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry.
Currently, 75 per cent. of the money spent by the GLC and the responsibilities that that entails will be passed on to the borough councils in London which are closer to the people and much more democratic. A total of 20 per cent. of expenditure is to be spent on the fire service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) rightly said, the main responsibility for the fire service is vested in the Home Office. Borough councillors within London will be responsible for the fire service, but not in a political organisation for which there is no need. There is no job for a successor to the GLC. It will have no responsibilities, and we are better off without it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) asked why London was different from other capital cities. In most other European countries, the capital is a sort of primus inter pares, but London is very different from other English cities, and it is perfectly proper that it should have a different form of local government. Paris and Bonn are completely different, and there is no reason why we should adopt the same solution as was adopted there.
The only possible reason for the amendment is to provide an identity for London. I am a Londoner born and bred, and many of my constituents in a third generation new town are Londoners born and bred. They do not look to the GLC to represent them, nor do they need that sort of identity for London.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am afraid that I shall not give way, and my hon. Friend well knows why.
We all know what the City of London or Westminster means, but if one looks at a map, what is it that combines Richmond and Kingston-upon-Thames with London docklands? What divides Sunbury from Twickenham? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is very interested in these issues. Perhaps he will arrange a trip for both of us in an aeroplane so that we can fly over London. Will he be able to tell me where it begins and ends? We all know what London is, and we do not need a GLC to identify or represent it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken against the amendment, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). They are quite right. The amendment is nonsense and we should throw it out.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am in favour of amendment No. 68. It is becoming increasingly clear that throughout the passage of this Bill the Government have failed to make a case for abolition. They might have satisfied a few bigots behind them and no doubt pleased a few Conservative leaders of Tory boroughs, but in terms of general public awareness they have failed to make their case.
From the submissions that were made on "Streamlining the Cities" and from the discussions during the 170 hours in Committee, we know that at no point could the Government claim any independent or authoritative support for their proposals. Had they been able to do so, I am sure that they would have done. However, no independent source came to the Government's assistance, and again the Secretary of State has completely blown the argument.
In effect, the right hon. Gentleman said that London will now be the Secretary of State, because he will decide on overall London-wide issues. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the decisions will be taken at local level, even though we now have rate capping, GREAs and targets. People at local level will not be allowed to decide. Instead, Marsham street civil servants will decide the targets and the amount of money which local communities will have at their disposal to meet local needs. Therefore, the Secretary of State will be London, and, to all intents and purposes, he will also be the boroughs. That is what is happening to local government in London. All the power will effectively be concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State and his civil servants.
9.45 pm
I support amendment No. 68 and amendment No. 6, but with great reluctance and a deal of equivocation because they represent a compromise and I do not wish to compromise on this—that is perhaps the one attitude that I share with the Prime Minister. I want the GLC to continue in its existing form. Indeed, I look to the next Labour Government to ensure that the GLC has far more properly defined and extensive powers over the whole of the Greater London area—whatever we decide that to be, because in the end, like the boroughs, the boundaries of Greater London will be decided by the House.
Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that people regard themselves as Londoners. I do not know what Conservative Members tell people abroad who ask where they come from. Do they say that they come from Hampstead, or from Hayes and Harlington?

Mr. Dicks: rose—

Mr. Banks: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber. People may say that they come from the west end or the east end of London, but they regard themselves as Londoners. That being so, London-wide government naturally follows. Indeed, if one good thing has come out of this great conflict between Parliament and county hall it has been the sharpening of people's perception of themselves. I believe that they see themselves more as Londoners now than they did even 18 months ago. Therefore, although I dislike the amendments because they are a compromise, I shall reluctantly support them.
Something in me wants the Bill to go through utterly unamended because I realise how much damage it will do to the Conservative party in London. A large part of me would therefore like the Bill to go through as it is. Nevertheless, I shall support amendments Nos. 68 and 6 because I prefer to preserve some element of democratic accountability and amendments calling for an inquiry by a Select Committee are clearly preferable to the back-of-a-fag paper undertakings on which abolition is based. We have been told many times that the concept did not emerge from long brainstorming sessions in the Cabinet but merely from the Prime Minister's dislike of Ken Livingstone and the activities of the Labour GLC.
When major changes in local government in this country are predicated on the party political prejudices of the Prime Minister it is a bad day for local democracy and a bad day for local government reorganisation. Every previous change in local government structures has taken place only after vigorous and detailed inquiry. We have heard about the Herbert commission, Redcliffe-Maud and the Marshall inquiry. Indeed, the two most prominent Ministers steering the Bill on its troubled passage through the House supported the GLC's strategic role when they gave evidence to the Marshall inquiry, but a change of Government and a promise of holding on to office has clearly changed their minds.
Changes in local government are now being brought about by personal fiat and the disquiet among Conservative Members is becoming increasingly apparent. I believe that that disquiet stems not just from whatever democratic feelings still linger in some elements of the Conservative party but from the fact that some Conservative Members have a pretty acute nose when it comes to sniffing the political winds and they realise—this is the bit that I like—that if the Bill goes through it will cause enormous damage to the Conservative party in London. Up to 20 Tory seats could disappear as a result of these changes. At least five Tory-controlled local authorities will go Labour in the 1986 elections. Hammersmith, Brent, Ealing, Wandsworth and Waltham Forest will undoubtedly be won by the Labour party because of the Bill. That is worrying many thoughtful Tories.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) asked about the London Boroughs Association. I have a letter from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) to councillor Cyril Taylor, who is the deputy leader of the GLC. I do not know why he should deliberately misunderstand or misrepresent the Government's position. After all, he is a reasonably intelligent Tory—there are still a few left. He makes it quite clear that putting control in the hands of the LBA would be

political suicide for the Conservative Party in London, as the constitution of the LBA is weighted against us.
That is a straightforward political consideration. The hon. Member for Beckenham realises that what his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate is offering is politically unrealistic for the Conservative party.
There is no authoritative support for the Government's proposal. Although I want to see as much damage as possible done to the Conservative party in London—if the Bill is passed unamended, that will happen—my love of democracy and anxiety for Londoners generally finally persuade me to support amendments No. 6 and No. 68.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I tell them that the Front Bench spokesmen will seek to speak at 10.15 pm. If hon. Members are relatively brief, many of them will be called to speak.

Mr. W. Benyon: This is the most crucial part of the Bill. Although Hampstead heath is important, I beg leave to say that other matters should be even more important.
In the Bill, most powers are being given to the boroughs. Those of us who support the amendments have nothing against the boroughs. Far from it. We are worried about the clash that will occur, not with other elected authorities, but with the powers transferred to the Secretary of State and, to a lesser extent, with the London-wide quangos and those that are composed of indirect representation.
The element of centralisation gives me the greatest anxiety. I ask myself three questions. First, do my right hon. and hon. Friends want these powers? Apart from the extra staff and effort entailed, it will be a bed of nails for whoever holds that office in future. Every candidate and councillor of a different political persuasion who receives queries about planning, roads or whatever will say, "That is not my responsibility. You must go to the Government, because that is where the power lies."
Secondly, even if my right hon. and hon. Friends are happy with the powers, are they happy that they should be exercised by a potential successor? If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) controlled planning in London, would it not bring even a slight quiver of anxiety to the spines of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench?

Mr. Cormack: To both Front Benches.

Mr. Benyon: Thirdly, is this something that the Tory party should be doing? The ethos of the Bill—this is why I supported it on Second Reading—is that we are removing an unnecessary tier of local government. Plainly, the tier is not unnecessary. One can tot up the matters that are not going to the boroughs. There is obviously a conflict between my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the exact proportion that is going to the boroughs. Plainly it is not unnecessary to have an authority to replace the GLC to cover these matters, because the powers are being vested in the Secretary of State.
Therefore, we have the extraordinary contrast between ILEA being elected and these powers being exercised directly by the Secretary of State. ILEA deals with only a section of the population in its area, whereas the powers for planning and roads will affect old and young alike.
Finally, to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) about capital cities, I must stress that this is not just an emotional argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, "If we have the body that is proposed by the amendment, it will be a hotbed of agitation." That was exactly the view that Hitler took of the Reichstag. It is completely different to want a body that represents our capital city, as happens in every other major country. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall concentrate my remarks on the metropolitan counties, since much of the debate has been about the GLC. However, I should say that I have felt throughout the progress of the Bill—tonight's debate has strengthened that feeling—that it is peculiar, to say the least, to contemplate a capital city without an elected body or some form of elected local government. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that he could differentiate between Britain and other western European countries, because in the latter the capital cities are primus inter pares, but that that was not the case in London because it was so much bigger than any other British city. Rather than weakening the argument for an elected authority, that strengthens the argument for a strategic body, democratically elected and accountable, to control and supervise the functions that are essential to London.
We have been told repeatedly that the purpose of the Bill is to devolve services and functions to the metropolitan districts. The reality is different. Some functions will be devolved; others will be centralised. A major criticism of the Bill is that the Secretary of State is assuming vast powers in relation to local government. Furthermore 70 per cent. of metropolitan county spending will be controlled by joint boards. The pattern of local government therefore will leave many questions to be answered. The Bill shows the ill-conceived and incoherent way in which the Government have approached the problem. For instance, why should we devolve 30 per cent. of metropolitan county spending to the districts and subject those services to democratic control, but devolve 70 per cent. of spending to joint boards which will be subjected to no democratic control. Those who serve on the joint boards will not be elected but will come indirectly from the metropolitan districts.
To take the argument a stage further, metropolitan counties border shire counties. In the latter, functions which in the metropolitan areas will be controlled by joint boards and will, therefore, not be subject to democratic control, will be subject to democratic control. How will the Government explain to the electorates of the metropolitan counties that it is safe for those who live in the shire counties to vote on those issues, but it is not safe to allow those who live in the metropolitan counties to do so? This extension of quango government is something that the Government will live to regret, and we in the metropolitan counties will continue to oppose it because we believe in democracy. In principle, the Bill is wrong. In principle, I shall continue to oppose it and, in principle, I shall continue to argue that we need democratic control of functions in the metropolitan counties, whatever happens to the Bill.
The Bill is also bad in practice. Its reality is that all the joint boards will leave a vacuum in local government and

this is particularly so of the relationship between the joint boards and the electorate. The elector will not know to whom to turn. Nobody will stand for the joint boards and be elected to them. The people who will be appointed will have been elected to authorities which cover other functions. They will not be directly elected. To whom does one go as an elector? To whom does one take one's problems? There will be no direct, definable councillor to whom one can turn.
10 pm
The debate has concentrated heavily on London. Those Conservative Members who have grave doubts about the Government's proposals for London and are likely to support the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) should realise that the arguments obtain for the metropolitan counties as well. If they are to vote for democracy in London, they should be consistent and vote for democracy in the metropolitan counties as well. If they do not, those of us in the north will feel that the great divide in the country is prevailing yet again. It will show that they are worried about democratic rights in the south but not about those in the north, and have not taken an interest in the arguments about the north. The arguments are the same and so are equally strong. Therefore, I ask Conservative Members to support us and to save local government in the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The subject of the debate and of the two amendments on which we have been concentrating is the desirability of introducing a small democratically elected body to represent the people of London. The question can be tackled in two ways. We can talk about the practical needs of Government or we can talk about it in what has been called an emotional or romantic way and say that the people of London need someone to speak for them no matter what he says or how little power he may have.
In a way, the fact that so many of us have experience of local government in London may almost be a drawback. However modest one may be as an individual, we feel that the importance of the role that we played at county hall and elsewhere must be echoed in the hearts of Londoners. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who has tabled amendment No. 6, and under whom I served devotedly when he was leader of the opposition on the old London county council, feels that the focus of ordinary Londoners' attention is concentrated on the activities at county hall. I am equally sure that he is mistaken.
The practicalities of making London government more simple to understand and more democratic have been argued by many right hon. and hon. Friends, but I wish to put a question to which I have not yet heard an answer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, during the 21 years of its life, the GLC had never been perceived as acting for London, and he instanced a number of examples, such as the docklands area. However one may view the system under which the dockland area is being developed, one cannot begin to deny that the improvement and the excitement and the acceleration of the provision of jobs, houses and life in that great area of London is moving forward in a way that would have been impossible if the Government had left the area under the previous arrangement.
The question I want to put to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who will be winding up for the Opposition is this. Can he give an example of a single occasion during those 21 years when the chairman or the leader of the GLC was seen by ordinary Londoners to be speaking for the people of London? Can he give me a single example of when the chairman or leader of the GLC has gripped the imagination and aroused the enthusiasm and local patriotism of Londoners, as other local institutions have been able to do over the centuries? The answer is that it has never happend. We are being persuaded, by this great outflow of ratepayers' money, to ascribe to the Greater London council youthful, exciting, get-up-and-go qualities that it has never had. It is a bumbling morass of bureacracy. It puts off decisions until the next day, duplicates expensively what others have done, takes holidays and does not answer letters. The GLC has never stirred the imagination of Londoners and it never will. If the hon. Member for Blackburn can say when the leadership of the GLC has aroused the emotions of the people of London and given visible leadership to London, I shall present him with a bunch of flowers at the end of this debate.

Mr. Cormack: Much though I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), I disagree profoundly with it. There was a time when the illustrious leader of our party regarded the Greater London council as the jewel in the crown of the party. That, of course, was when the Conservatives were in political control. When the leadership of the GLC passed into other hands our views changed.
I want to concentrate briefly on the central issue that is before us this evening. With respect to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), it is not the metropolitan counties.
As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who spoke so eloquently to amendment No. 6, there is a very real difference. If the Bill, for which I have little time and for which I have not and will not cast a single vote, is placed on the statute book, the people of Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield will be directly represented. There will be a coordinating authority in their cities. There is a very real difference between that and what has been fatuously dismissed as the emotional argument about the capital city. I say "fatuously dismissed" because, for all the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, for a century or more now the capital city has had a directly elected coordinating authority of sorts. Those of us who have put our names to the amendment are proposing something which recognises that fact and which is wholly consistent with the Conservative party manifesto. Many of us believe that this pledge was inserted in the manifesto as a last minute political gut reaction, and we are not very happy about it. Nevertheless, the amendment accepts that this pledge was part of the manifesto and the logic of the Government majority, yet it still says, "Think again about London".
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State entirely failed to persuade me when he sought, I thought with a lackadaisical lack of fervour, to put across the case. He did not answer the question about strategic planning. It seems to me to be absolutely essential that a body of some kind should be responsible for strategic planning in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) made a very telling point when he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State may one day come from another party and that this was one of the most important factors of all to bear in mind. One should never take to oneself powers one does not wish one's opponent to have. That is a cardinal principle of democratic government. The Government are seeking to enact a dangerous precedent.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston presented a list of functions which are by no means the same as the functions exercised by the GLC. He listed functions which should be the preserve of a directly elected body.
Even at this late stage I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to recognise that people feel deeply about this matter. I do not subscribe to the view that Mr. Cyril Taylor or Mr. Greengross are inexperienced or that they have not thought the issue through. They have thought it through thoroughly and carefully. Many people and associations involved in town planning and architecture in London and who have had great experience believe that the Government have got it wrong.
I ask my right hon. Friend please to concede that he might be mistaken. If the Government go along this road conflicts will be so great that we shall be able to quote yet again the Prime Minister's greatest admirer:
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Conflict will occur in the London Boroughs Association and in all the quangos. For a Tory Government to propose a measure which in effect says that "a thousand quangos bloom" flies in the face of everything that we have preached in the last two or three years.
Even if the powerful speech about Hampstead heath by the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) is dismissed — because the Government are not in the business of protecting heaths at the moment — a powerful case has been made. Some hon. Members criticise non-London Members for taking part in this debate, but we all have the right to speak about our capital city. Why should our great capital city be almost alone in western Europe in not having the modest type of authority proposed in the amendment?

Mr. Chris Smith: I was stirred by the speech by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who said that the GLC had never stirred the imagination of Londoners. Nothing has stirred the imagination of Londoners more than the attempt by the Government to abolish their representative council. The proposal to abolish London's democratic voice has galvanised Londoners into the defence of an institution which was previously regarded as being bureaucratic and remote in many ways. In many respects it is, and it does have its faults.
The Greater London council's saving grace is that it is elected and represents the capital city. Londoners regard themselves as being part of London. They value the opportunity to vote for a council that represents Londoners. That is what has galvanised enormous support across London, particularly in my constituency.
I speak to many of my constituents who feel very deeply that removing the GLC will take from them the right to have a voice in the future of their city, not as part of a borough but as a metropolis. That matters to my constituents. Surely it should also matter to the House, even though it appears not to matter to the Government.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) offered me flowers. I shall decline his kind invitation because the good members of the backbone Labour party would not entirely understand it, were I to accept. However, I shall answer his question. It is not just Ken Livingstone who has made a name for himself as leader of the Greater London council. There have been many distinguished leaders from the Conservative side. Horace Cutler and Sir Desmond Plummer were both well-known names in London, and they sought to speak for London. Sir Desmond Plummer certainly excited the imagination of the Minister of State because, year after year, it was he who was so excited by the GLC that he came to the House to move the Second Reading of the GLC money Bills. In March 1971, he said of the GLC:
It has progressive and expanding programmes, it is making life better for Londoners, and it will make it infinitely better for Londoners in the 1970s and the 1980s."—[Official Report, 18 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1741.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on in a similar vein throughout the 1970s, excited by Sir Desmond Plummer and Horace Cutler, for example when he was approving of the GLC's employment initiative in 1978.
I shall decline the bunch of flowers, but I believe that I have earned them. When he winds up, look forward to the Minister of State accepting an invitation, which I have offered him on three occasions, to explain why, when he first introduced the Bill, he said that he had always believed in the abolition of the GLC right from the 1960s. In fact, he has been supporting the GLC from the 1960s and 1970s. It is the responsibility of Ministers to explain why they have changed their mind.
If ever there was a case for the amendments before the House, it was made by the Secretary of State himself in his speech. It was a quite astonishing speech, in which the right hon. Gentleman revealed two things. The first is his utter ignorance of the geography of our nation and our cities. Secondly, he revealed the true motives that lie behind the Bill, because the Bill does not in the least involve real devolution of power to districts, but, as the Secretary of State admitted, the centralisation of power. The message from the right hon. Gentleman was, "Whitehall knows best. Only Whitehall can decide."
Quite often we read in the Conservative Newsline newspaper that the Secretary of State goes around the country criticising Marxists. I think that he has been taking too much notice of Marxists, especially Marxist-Leninists. It was obvious from his speech that he has been converted to democratic centralism. I have never heard such a perfect description of democratic centralism in which one cannot leave little units to decide among themselves because it is messy and they might make the wrong decision. The M25 is outside the boundaries of Greater London; the M1 goes from London to Birmingham; and a change in the traffic scheme in Talgarth Road affects Berkshire. One cannot leave those decisions to be sorted out locally. One has to accrete the powers and centralise it in Marsham street and Whitehall.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall not because I have only two minutes—

Mr. Tracey: It is an important point.

Mr. Straw: I shall give way, but the time will come out of the Minister of State's speech.

Mr. Tracey: I should like the hon. Gentleman to make it clear before he finishes his speech whether metropolitan county councils would be reinstated if the Labour Government were to come back into power. I should like the hon. Gentleman to make that clear because the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has never made it clear to the House.

Mr. Straw: We have made the position completely clear to the House on many occasions.
What I want to do now in the two minutes that I have left is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer is that there will be a reinstatement of countywide democracy in the metropolitan counties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I shall tell Conservative Members this much as well, and the time that I take will also come out of the Minister's speech. We shall not write our manifesto on the back of a cigarette packet. We shall not ignore the democratic wishes of our own party. We shall discuss the matter and consult people before we come to a final conclusion, if this Parliament, in both Houses, approves the Bill unamended. But we have not reached that stage, either.
In justifying his extraordinary statement that one power after another—such as transport, land use and planning—had to be centralised within Whitehall, the Secretary of State sought to deny that London was a geographical entity—a city.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said when he was the Minister for Local Government in 1962. There has been no earthquake since then—London has had the same, if not a smaller, population and has stayed within similar boundaries because the green belt has not been altered. In 1962 the right hon. Gentleman said:
Yet Greater London is, in a very real sense, a single city. Admittedly, it embraces many places of distinctive character which attract strong loyalties. Nevertheless, the whole of the great urban area, which spreads out to and is contained by the green belt, is one metropolis." —[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 52.]
We all know that to be the case for the metropolises of Manchester, Merseyside, parts of the west midlands, Tyne and Wear and within Yorkshire. There will always be difficulties in deciding exactly where the boundary lies—whether the boundary between Redbridge and Essex goes down one road in Buckhurst hill or another road.
We also know that, broadly speaking, the boundaries of the GLC coincide with the boundaries of the metropolis. If the Secretary of State does not recognise the nature of capital cities, he should not hold such a great office. If we fail to agree to the amendments, London and the other major conurbations will be the only major cities in the free world without their own unified system of government.
I ask the Conservative party, which was founded almost on the idea of local democracy and of not accepting centralised control—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: What?

Mr. Straw: The Minister questions me. He should read Disraeli and find out what the real Conservative party is all about. The trouble is that he has read only the works of the Prime Minister who has hijacked the party. In the past, the Conservative party has been a defender of local democracy. Unless the amendments are passed, it will never be able to claim that local democracy is one of the principles that it holds true.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) was right to say that this is an important debate. It goes to the heart of the question of the need for a strategic overview of metropolitan areas. Two main amendments are before the House. The first was tabled by the Opposition and argues for a strategic overall authority for all metropolitan counties, including London. The second, tabled by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, argues for a strategic authority for London alone. If there is an administrative argument for an overview strategic authority for the reconciliation of conflict and for the better administration of certain joint services, it applies as much to the metropolitan counties as it does to London.
I appreciate that my hon. Friends believe that there is a special case for London because it is our capital city. At the very heart of this debate is the question whether we need a strategic overview. Embedded in the Bill is the fact that there must be overall strategic planning for London. We cannot imagine a conurbation as large and as highly developed as London without strategic overview planning. It is essential for land use planning and for roads.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) is deeply aware of the details of the Bill. He accepts that strategic planning is an essential part of the proposals in part I.
The question arises whether our proposals produce conflict. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the history of the last 100 years of our municipality and of our capital city was not one of conflict. I beg him to look at the works of Mr. Ken Young, who is the principal historian of our municipality. My right hon. Friend will observe that there has been an ebb and flow and a tug of war between the overall authorities and the boroughs. That has been endemic within the municipality, and it has happened within the lifetime of hon. Members. When the GLC was set up in 1963, it had many strategic functions, one of which was housing. When it was set up, it was responsible for 700,000 houses. In June this year, it will be responsible for just 15,000 houses — fewer than any London borough.
Indeed, the conflict between the upper and lower tiers came to a head in the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He will remember the arguments between Desmond Plummer, representing a Tory-controlled GLC, and the London boroughs about housing strategy in London, and the conflict that arose from the desire of a Conservative-controlled GLC to have a housing strategy which meant building in the outer boroughs. He will recall having to preside over arguments and meetings and resolve that conflict. The conflict was resolved essentially in the interests of the boroughs. That is an example of a tug-of-war having been won by the boroughs.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Baker: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must press on.
Then there is the question of roads. There has to be overall planning for roads and for traffic control. It is in precisely this area that the GLC has abandoned its strategic role. It has not had a road policy. [Interruption.] It has an anti-road policy. The strategy for roads of the Labour-controlled GLC is to be against roads and road development. Mr. Livingstone has financed two groups,

one called Capital and one called Traffic, the objects of which are to campaign against a strategic road strategy for the city. Under this policy the movement of traffic in London has worsened, because there has been no strategic development of roads in London for the last six or seven years. That is why many businesses are moving out to the area where there is better movement of traffic—around the M25.
I have been asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends whether I could devise a body which would maintain a strategic overview but would not have the overall powers of the GLC — a mini-GLC. I have considered this seriously. I have studied all the pamphlets and the flood of words that have come out in the last year. If one creates a body which has executive functions, it must have the power to appoint staff and to raise money. If one creates such a body, it will inevitably be a mini-GLC. There is no halfway house. That is the essential dilemma and the difficulty.
In the last moments of my speech, may I deal—

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Baker: —with the argument that has been put about the Voice for London.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Baker: With regard to the Voice for London, some of my hon. Friends have said that this is an emotional point. If it is an emotional argument, I do not derogate it for that. In fact, much of the heart of politics is about emotion. I accept that the Voice for London is an emotional matter. I understand the feeling that somewhere there must be a body that speaks for London. If one considers the history of London, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) did, it will be noted that over the decades and centuries there has not been one body, one institution, that has spoken for London. The closest that one could get to it was the old London County council when it was run by Herbert Morrison. That was a strategic authority. It was responsible for planning, roads, hospitals and social services, but those powers have been long abandoned. Indeed, no one has spoken for London in that sense. That was a Government within a Government. Mr. Morrison said that he could speak for London. He spoke for the inner metropolis, but he never spoke for the outer London boroughs such as Richmond, Enfield, Hillingdon and Havering.
There has never been one voice for London in our history. It is one of the unique features of the development of our great capital city that it is an amalgamation of different communities, villages, cultures and ethnic groups. They have all added to the identity that makes up the unique—

It being half past Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [11 February] and the resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 335.

Division No. 169]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Guy


Ashdown, Paddy
Barron, Kevin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.






Bell, Stuart
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Benn, Tony
Howells, Geraint


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Johnston, Russell


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bruce, Malcolm
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Leighton, Ronald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cartwright, John
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clay, Robert
Litherland, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Loyden, Edward


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Coleman, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Conlan, Bernard
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Craigen, J. M.
Martin, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Brien, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ellis, Raymond
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Ewing, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freud, Clement
Robertson, George


Garrett, W. E.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rooker, J. W.


Golding, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Gourlay, Harry
Ryman, John


Ground, Patrick
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Haynes, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter





Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Steel, Rt Hon David
White, James


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Woodall, Alec


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wainwright, R.
Mr. John McWilliam and


Wallace, James
Mr. Sean Hughes.


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arnold, Tom
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Ashby, David
Dunn, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Farr, Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Best, Keith
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher, Alexander


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Body, Richard
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Hon Adam
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harvey, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Coombs, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Hayes, J.


Couchman, James
Hayhoe, Barney


Cranborne, Viscount
Hayward, Robert


Crouch, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heddle, John






Henderson, Barry
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hickmet, Richard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hill, James
Murphy, Christopher


Hind, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Hirst, Michael
Needham, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Nicholson, J.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Onslow, Cranley


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Osborn, Sir John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Irving, Charles
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powley, John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Key, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raffan, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Latham, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lilley, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Luce, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCusker, Harold
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Mellor, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Moore, John
Stokes, John





Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Bill (Tside N)


Sumberg, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Waller, Gary


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thurnham, Peter
Wheeler, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitfield, John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Carol Mather and


Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, No. 6, in page 1, line 15, at end Insert—
'(3) Within three months of the date of the Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay an order before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) for the London Residuary body established under section 55(1)(a) of this Act to have a membership directly elected in accordance with the Representation of the People Act 1983 and this Act and that section 55 and Schedule 13 of this Act be consequentially modified; and
(b) for the name of the London Residuary Body to be changed in consequence of the implementation of proposals of this sub-section; and
(c) for section 65 of this Act to cease to have effect as respects the London Residuary Body; and
(d) providing for the transfer to the London Residuary Body of such functions, not being functions which are transferred by this Act solely to individual London boroughs, as shall be determined by Parliament on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House of Commons.'.—[Mr. Ground.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 334.

Division No. 170]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Bruce, Malcolm


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman


Ashdown, Paddy
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Barnett, Guy
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Barron, Kevin
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clay, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Coleman, Donald


Benyon, William
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bermingham, Gerald
Conlan, Bernard


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cormack, Patrick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)






Craigen, J, M.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crowther, Stan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dubs, Alfred
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Ellis, Raymond
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Miscampbell, Norman


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, David


Forrester, John
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freud, Clement
Park, George


Garrett, W. E.
Pendry, Tom


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Penhaligon, David


Godman, Dr Norman
Pike, Peter


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Gourlay, Harry
Radice, Giles


Ground, Patrick
Redmond, M.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hanley, Jeremy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Haselhurst, Alan
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rowlands, Ted


Hicks, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howells, Geraint
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Steel, Rt Hon David


John, Brynmor
Stott, Roger


Johnston, Russell
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Tinn, James


Kirkwood, Archy
Torney, Tom


Knox, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lamond, James
Wainwright, R.


Leighton, Ronald
Wallace, James


Lester, Jim
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Weetch, Ken


Litherland, Robert
White, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Loyden, Edward
Winnick, David


McCartney, Hugh
Woodall, Alec





Wrigglesworth, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Hugh Dykes and



Mr. John Wilkinson.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ancram, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Farr, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Marcus


Best, Keith
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Galley, Roy


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cash, William
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heddle, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Henderson, Barry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hickmet, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holt, Richard


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dicks, Terry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dover, Den
Hunt, David (Wirral)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dunn, Robert
Hunter, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jackson, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick






Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell, William (Corby)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Powley, John


Key, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rathbone, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Latham, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lilley, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Luce, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCusker, Harold
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Mellor, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sumberg, David


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Needham, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Nelson, Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nicholson, J.
Thornton, Malcolm


Norris, Steven
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Osborn, Sir John
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Parris, Matthew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Waddington, David





Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Waldegrave, Hon William
Whitfield, John


Walden, George
Whitney, Raymond


Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watson, John



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Mr. Cowans: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 3, line 4, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to subsection (5) below,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 77, in page 3, line 23, at end insert
'(5) The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date lay before Parliament a report in respect of the strategic guidance to be given by him under Schedule 1 to this Act, setting out— 

(a) the matters he is to take into account in formulating his strategic guidance,
(b) the arrangements to be made for the giving of advice to him in preparing such guidance,
(c) the arrangements for consultation on, publicity for and objections to any such guidance before it is given to a local planning authority in a metropolitan county or Greater London, as the case may be.'.

No. 103, in schedule 1, page 71, line 28, after 'plan', insert
'following an examination in public into that guidance and any subsequent modifications'.

11 pm

Mr. Cowans: When we can clear the Chamber of those who are not interested in local government—when the gossip column people move out and those who care about local government stay—perhaps we can get on to the amendments—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because some of us are extremely interested in local government — [Interruption.] There is a saying that empty vessels make the loudest noise. If some of the empty vessels left the Chamber, perhaps this nonsense legislation would not be before us.
We move the amendments in all seriousness, because even the Government believe that there is a need for overall planning. But, as with so many Government actions, knowing the answer, they step back from the problem and try to hedge the issue. Even Conservative Members appear to accept the argument, but only in respect of London. Twice today I have asked the House to remember that the Bill relates not only to the GLC, but to six metropolitan county councils. However, in defence of the Bill, the Government seem to refer only to the GLC.
I should like to quote from a document from the Town and Country Planning Association of 20 March 1985, which argues the need for a strategic conurbation-wide authority. It states:
Conservative MPs in the South East appear to accept the need for one publicly accountable London-wide body for the Greater London area. There does not appear to be the same anxiety about the efficient local government of the Metropolitan conurbations.
Throughout the debate, that has been proved repeatedly, because the Government's arguments reflect only their paranoia about the GLC. The Bill proposes the abolition of the six metropolitan county councils, yet we have never heard an argument from the Government that bears any resemblance to the major part of the Bill.
Three august bodies, which are not as far as I know affiliated to the Labour party — the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects—in a document dated 25 March 1985, state:
All three development professions are concerned that the Bill as it stands will abolish bodies whose task it is to take a wider view than that of individual districts or boroughs without setting up an adequate alternative legislative and organisational framework.
Those are the professions that work in local government.
In relation to the London Planning Commission, which the Government hope to set up under the Bill, those organisations make the important point:
The London Planning Commission and the voluntary planning conferences in the metropolitan counties are given neither the powers nor the resources necessary to plan or to create the essential infrastructure.
In other words, we have a paper tiger with no power.
The amendments recognise the position. We do not regard any Secretary of State, Labour or Conservative, as a divine animal who, when legislation has been passed by the House, should have the freedom to manoeuvre and do anything he wants under its provisions without returning to the House. Any Member of Parliament worth his salt who has sat in Committee for a long time dotting i's and crossing t's would not want a Secretary of State to have power to do what he liked without coming first to the House. If the amendments are not accepted, that is what will happen.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could introduce any order or lay down criteria or guidance without having to come back to the House to justify what he is doing. It makes nonsense of spending two or three months in Committee arguing the case left, right and centre if the Secretary of State is then allowed to ignore the House of Commons when laying down strategic planning guidance. Why did we spend all that time in Committee? There was no filibustering. All the issues were discussed as fully as possible until we had the nonsense of the guillotine. Yet the House sees fit, without these amendments, to lay a divine responsibility on a Secretary of State.
Any Secretary of State worth his salt should have no fear of the House of Commons. He should not be afraid to return to the House if he wants to lay down guidance and say, "This is the guidance I want to lay down. I am telling you about it so that there can be a debate." With the majority that the Government have, there is no fear of them losing any vote, but at least the House would have the opportunity to place on record its views and whether it thought something had been neglected.
It might be useful for the Secretary of State to have the benefit of a debate, because he might find that he had missed something. Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents, and they should have the opportunity to debate or challenge what the Secretary of State wishes to do. This is not a political point. Far too much legislation allows Secretaries of State or Ministers to lay orders without coming back to Parliament. If that is not a negation of democracy, I do not know what is.
I foresee the day when there may be a one-page Bill to the effect that the Secretary of State can do anything he likes once the Bill has been passed. The amendment seeks to prevent that. All we ask is that, when laying down guidelines, the Secretary of State should present them to and obtain the approval of Parliament. That is not a political matter. In nearly all Bills there is what I would define as a "belt and braces" clause. It allows the Secretary of State, of whatever political party, to do practically anything he wants. I think that is wrong.
On what basis could the Minister reject these amendments? We note that the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the House Builders Federation highlight the need for a strategic framework so that the providers of services can look to one body to make decisions. On far too many occasions one finds that planning issues transcend metropolitan district boundaries. The organisations to which I have referred do not normally support the Labour party. Indeed, I doubt whether they ever would, yet even they have grave doubts about the draconian powers that will be given to the Secretary of State unless these amendments are accepted.
Finally, I refer to an article in The Standard of 27 March 1985, headed "Jenkin's HQ is cracking up." If the Secretary of State cannot look after his headquarters, that is all the more reason why he should come to the House of Commons on all occasions and debate the issue. If he is right, his view will carry the day. If he is not right, he will have had the benefit of hearing the views of individual Members.
These amendments are essential and should be made to the Bill. Every hon. Member should have the right to stand up and argue his case. If the amendments are not accepted, I believe we shall end up with the Prime Minister in No. 10 with a computer, and the rest of us can go home. That will not be good for democracy, for legislation or for the public. It would be nonsense not to accept the amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The issue before the House is whether we should be given details of one of the powers which the Secretary of State agrees should continue to exist at the strategic level, namely, strategic planning, but which in future will be exercised by him instead of by a directly elected authority. For the purpose of tonight's debate I accept that these are probing amendments rather than amendments which are to be conclusively determined. If that is right, it is very important for the House to know what advice the Secretary of State envisages he will give by way of strategic guidance. As a London Member, the Under-Secretary knows that that is important, whether one seeks to increase or to decrease the traffic using the road system. One has to cater for a population which may remain static, or become or smaller.
One must deal with an area which will be governed within the same boundaries or, as the Secretary of State hinted, beyond the present Greater London boundaries.
11.15 pm
The amendments seek a commitment from the Government that we shall be told the strategic plan guidance in advance so that we can debate it. If strategic planning has still to be done, the fundamental starting document — the strategic plan which the Government accept must be updated—must be based upon the best informed advice. That should not mean intervention by the Secretary of State, with his, or her, prejudices or views. The plan should be debated and thrashed out, using expertise and views which cover as wide a range as possible. By that means we can decide upon the best parameters and the best guidance. We need clear assurances tonight, although in the past we have had very little from the Government Front Bench.

Dr. Twinn: The Opposition seem to be far too taken by pretty colours on maps. They should look at the real world. Earlier, we heard about looking at urban development on a map and deciding whether any community of interest was involved. I represent a constituency in a London borough, but it has little affinity with the remainder of London. It was hijacked into London in 1964. Its residents do not look upon London as its setting. They believe that they live in Middlesex, and regret that Middlesex no longer exists. My constituents are sensible to take that view. They regret that they were hijacked into the London boroughs. They would much rather be regarded as living in an urban district, with their own Edmonton council, although that, alas, would probably be Labour controlled.
There is a dichotomy on London. Planning is a problem. The public relate to small areas. My constituents see Edmonton as the area with which they associate themselves in terms of strategic planning. They might also think of Enfield or Tottenham—although they might try not to do that if Spurs are playing and there might be parking problems. They might look to the greener pastures of Chingford and Barnet. They might look to Hertfordshire, but they do not think of London as a whole, of Croydon or of Bromley. I understand that places such as Purley exist in the south of London somewhere, but such places have no impact upon my constituents.
In terms of strategic planning, we must consider the relationships in a whole area. We fool ourselves if we think that the GLC boundaries have any relevance except in party political terms. They represent the compromises made when boundaries were set during local government reorganisation. The GLC boundaries mean nothing in strategic planning terms.
The M25 is outside the GLC area, except for that part which goes through Enfield. The green belt is also mostly outside the GLC area. I should upset many colleagues if I were to suggest that places such as Dartford, St. Albans, Reigate and possibly Cambridge should be part of a London region. Commuters travel from as far away as Norwich. Those areas are part of the functional London region.
If we are to talk about strategic planning, for goodness sake let us talk about real strategic planning. The GLC has been a failure as a strategic planning authority. It is no

example to give. Many of my colleagues in the planning world who do not share my political views have said to me, on the issue of the GLC, "Do try to argue your case on the abolition of the GLC, but forget the planning issue, because I would not use planning as an example to try to save the GLC." Strategic planning is not for the GLC.

Mr. Cowans: I am enjoying an entertaining speech, but I cannot see its relevance, because all that we are asking is that the Secretary of State comes to the House and lays down the guidelines, and that we have the chance to challenge and discuss them. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about how his area looks to other areas, but our case is that we are asking that the Secretary of State comes before the House and lays down the guidelines, so that he and I have a chance to discuss them. That is what the amendment says.

Dr. Twinn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is enjoying the discussion. We are trying to define what strategic planning is about.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will know, I have suggested that we have wider inputs into strategic planning. I should still like to see SERPLAN, the regional planning authority, take on the role that it was set up to play. I suggested that in Committee, but Opposition Members ridiculed the idea of having effective strategic planning. They said that the county councils were against it, as well as the London boroughs. I understand that view.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We rubbished the proposal, but it was rubbished on the basis of SERPLAN's evidence, which was that it did not believe that that was the proper thing to do. SERPLAN rejected the Secretary of State's proposals.

Dr. Twinn: The hon. Member for the GLC rather jumps the gun. I understand SERPLAN'S view on that. It represents entrenched interests of the shire counties around London, which rightly look on the GLC excesses and say, "We do not want any of that affecting the shire counties." I sympathise with that view, but if we are talking about rational strategic planning for the London region, perhaps we have to look at a wider area. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that, although I understand that it may not be possible within the bounds of the Bill. I hope that they will come to it later.
In effect, there will be no change in strategic planning in London. What happens now is that the Secretary of State makes the effective decisions. London boroughs have their say. Of course they do. They have their development plans. The GLC has tried to have its say but has failed. Its one attempt at strategic planning, when it tried to exert itself and be a strategic planning authority, was docklands. It is the only occasion when it has tried to be a strategic planning authority. It could not get agreement among its own Labour boroughs in inner London. They argued for years and years, until in the end the Government had to exert themselves and put an urban development corporation into docklands to try to bring about some effective development.
Now we begin to see something happening in the inner city. As a London resident, I welcome that. As a London Member of Parliament, again I welcome that, because I can see that there is a need for the core of London to be developed. But the GLC did not do that. The GLC, or any successor authority, if the Opposition were to have their


way, would have no more effect than the present GLC on strategic planning in London. It is the Secretary of State who in the end has the impact on London.
The London boroughs will be able to bring strategic planning in London down to the constituents' level. They will be able to identify with the London boroughs and with their own ward councillors. They will be able to put their priorities across to their ward councillors and feed that information to the Secretary of State and the London planning commission. In that way, we shall have far more effective strategic planning in London.
The proposals in the Bill will lead to more effective planning of London than anything that Opposition Members may suggest. Although I regret that we shall not go for a wider strategic and regional planning function, I accept that the Secretary of State's powers remain paramount, and I support them in the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to speak to amendment No. 103, which draws attention to the various arguments that we put forward in Committee about the centralisation of planning powers, the loss of democratic input and the practicability of the working of the new planning system. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) raised an interesting point about discussing the scope of strategic planning for the south-east. Frankly, this is not the place to be discussing it. It is a guillotined debate, late at night, which is not the way to consider strategic planning for London and the metropolitan counties. That is our complaint about all aspects of the Bill — it is ill-considered. We have not been given the opportunity of rational and impartial discussions on vital matters.
One of the major new provisions of the Bill is the power that it gives to the Secretary of State to issue strategic guidance. It is far more specific than anything currently available to him.
The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned SERPLAN. It wrote a letter on 31 October 1984 saying that the proposals would
make the Secretary of State the strategic planning authority for Greater London, but without the obligation to prepare an overall structure plan and to subject it to formal and detailed scrutiny through an examination in public.
Why is it that the strategic guidance will be the only element in the planning system that will not be subject to possible public inquiry before it is laid down? That is the democratic argument that concerns us in London and the metropolitan areas.
The Bill makes no provision for public involvement in the guidance that will, in effect, be the structure plan for London. The strategic guidance will not reflect extensive consultations that have gone into both the GLDP proposed alterations and the shire structure plans. Nor will it be subject to an examination in public, which considerably reduces the opportunities for Londoners to influence the future development of their city — opportunities which the shire counties will continue to enjoy.
Once again we have to make a comparison between the unfavourable way in which London is being treated and the favourable way in which the shire counties are being treated. That is in some way connected with the fact that the shire counties are Tory controlled, while the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are Labour controlled. It is a party political matter.
The Minister said in Committee that he undertook to ensure that the voices of the London boroughs and other interested bodies were heard by the London planning

commission in the early stages of the preparation of strategic guidance and that changes would be made in the Bill to ensure that. That is the sort of matter that should have been thought through beforehand. The Minister is coming forward with a hastily prepared Bill and saying that he might have to change his mind if it does not work out.
The Minister also said in Committee:
I should stress that the reference to this guidance in this context is not to give that guidance statutory force.
In the same breath he also said:
Once it is issued, clearly authorities must have regard to it." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 January 1985; c. 473.]
There will be no public involvement in the issuing of the guidance, and we do not know what its force will be. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us so that we understand it.
The proposed new strategic planning system for London and the metropolitan counties will mean duplication, delay and increased costs in preparing up-to-date plans. A proper co-ordination between the London boroughs will be difficult to achieve, the strategic guidance being argued at up to 33 separate inquiries. Where is the streamlining of the cities in that complicated machinery? There is no prospect of a London-wide framework emerging until the early 1990s. Not only will the issuing of mandatory strategic guidance by the Secretary of State be far less democratic than at present, but the system will be far more bureaucratic.
The Government, in stumbling around in the area of strategic guidance, have tentatively indicated in various consultation papers that there will be at least five stages involved in discussing, preparing and consulting on the strategic guidance before it can be used by the boroughs. The planning commission will be consulting the boroughs and others; for example, SERPLAN. Then the planning commission will be formulating its advice to the Secretary of State: it consults, and passes on its advice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will consult other Government Departments, and then issue guidance.
As in many other matters, all power will eventually reside in the hands of the Secretary of State and at Marsham street. I cannot believe that Conservative Members will be prepared to support him.

Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did well to conceal his disappointment at the substantial majority by which the last amendment was rejected. I hope that, in the light of that decision, he will now take down all the posters stating that 74 per cent. say no, and replace them with posters stating that 61 per cent. say yes, because that was the decision of the House this evening.
I think that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) underestimate the extent to which the Secretary of State has considerable planning powers at present in dealing with appeals and the existing GLDP and structure plans. The contrast that they sought to make between the existing system and the proposed one does not stand up because the Secretary of State already has extensive powers.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge made some remarks about my departmental headquarters at Marsham street. The battle over abolition is beginning to take its toll at


county hall, which seems to be subject to periodic attempts at arson, and in my Department, which is showing some slight cracks. Happily those cracks are not very serious and the building will remain there for some time.
If I may deal with amendments Nos 76 and 77, the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge made a plea that before abolition my right hon. Friend should report to Parliament on the arrangements for strategic guidance. Following royal assent, I would expect my right hon. Friend to issue more detailed advice about the mechanics of the planning arrangements, perhaps in the form of a circular for the local authorities concerned. I do not see the need to put this kind of elaboration and these practical arrangements before the House. The principles have already been established through the consultation paper and the revised proposals paper, and in the lengthy debate in Committee. That part of our proceedings was not guillotined, and we had the most extensive debate on planning that I think any hon. Member could have expected. The suggestion that the matter was not adequately debated does not stand up.
It may help if I enlarge on the matters contained in the amendments, and respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The range of subjects which strategic guidance must cover was mentioned in Committee. The topics, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, would cover population trends, housing, major transport routes, industrial and commercial centres, minerals and open space. Metropolitan county planning conferences and the London planning commission will advise my right hon. Friend on what aspects of these topics need to be covered in strategic guidance. They can advise on the issues to be resolved, and on the scope and detail of the guidance needed.
I cannot prejudge the nature of this advice as it will vary considerably from conurbation to conurbation. Typically, however, I would expect my right hon. Friend to be concerned with issues of countywide significance and with those which straddle district and borough boundaries and have a strategic significance. The guidance will not be a detailed blueprint, but will allow the successor authorities flexibility and freedom in preparing their urban development plans. Moreover, it will provide the essentials to maintain a coherent and consistent approach. As to the arrangements to be made for the giving of advice to the Secretary of State, the Bill provides for the setting up of a planning commission in London which will be a source of professional advice and expertise. Arrangements for setting up the commission will be subject to an order laid before Parliament. Outside London such special arrangements are not needed, but my right hon. Friend will set up planning conferences of the local authorities. The smaller number of authorities will make it more practicable for the Secretary of State to work with them to produce the advice that will be needed. The conferences that my right hon. Friend will convene will include the planning authorities, Government Departments and neighbouring authorities. They will be non-statutory and this will give them a greater measure of flexibility to respond to the differing needs and differing requirements of each area. I am confident that these arrangements will lead to effective and soundly based advice that is rooted in the practical experience of the authorities concerned.
I turn to the arrangements for consultation. Before the London Planning Commission and the planning conferences advise the Secretary of State on what guidance they consider is appropriate, they will need to gather essential information. They will have to consult interested parties and take soundings with those likely to have something useful to say. How precisely they do it will be a matter for them, but it could well be that the LPC will hold its own informed hearing or take evidence. To prescribe the procedures in advance would merely restrict the commission's ability to organise its consultation as it sees fit.
Once received, my right hon. Friend will make arrangements to publicise the advice of the commission and the conferences. There will be a general invitation to comment to the Secretary of State. This means that Londoners and others will have an opportunity to make their views known at that stage. I would expect the invitation to be targeted on specific groups which are likely to be substantially affected by strategic decisions. In the light of the response, the Secretary of State will prepare draft guidance to clarify issues, resolve conflicts and provide a coherent framework for the unitary development plans.
The Secretary of State will make arrangements for this draft guidance to be publicised and for comments to be made. I would not rule out at that stage the possibility of holding discussions with those concerned where any major questions remain to be answered. The finalised guidance would then be issued to the districts and the boroughs and be available to others who could make use of it. I am determined that this should be a simple, straightforward process, with built-in flexibility to meet the different circumstances in each conurbation. As I have explained, there will be ample opportunity for those with an interest in the planning process to make their views known. I hope that in the light of that more detailed explanation of what we have in mind the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendment No. 103. I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), who clearly has a great interest in and knowledge of planning. Planning which is more firmly based on the boroughs is more likely to be effective. The amendment contains a proposal for an examination in public into the draft strategic guidance. It seems that the amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the Government's approach. The strategic guidance, is, after all, designed to provide a basic framework for the more detailed work of the successor authorities when they come to prepare the UDP. I must stress that the Secretary of State's guidance will be guidance only and will not be a plan.
Had we been contemplating strategic guidance in the form of structure plans, the argument that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge advanced would have been much more convincing. There would then have been a case for an examination in public. But that is not the position. The structure plan element is in part 1 of the unitary development plan and it is this which could be the subject of statutory consultation and an inquiry. Alternatively, there could be an examination in public if it was called in by my right hon. Friend. I think that that is the right approach. It is at that point that the statutory planning procedures begin to bite. It is far more appropriate to hold an inquiry once policy is developed to a structure plan level on detail and application than to have one into the


Secretary of State's guidance. It is far more appropriate to retain as far as possible responsibility with the local authorities.
The guidance set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be in the form of tablets of stone. The local planning authorities must "have regard" to it, as is set out in schedule 1,. They must have regard to it when they prepare their unitary development plans. The question of how they have dealt with strategic issues in that plan will be tested through the established practice of public consultations, objections and public local inquiries. There will have to be a public local inquiry at that stage if there are objections to parts I or II of the plan.

Mr. Allen McKay: May I press the Minister on a point that was made in Committee regarding local authorities and plans that have already been formulated? Will the flow of planning continue or will the local authorities have to wait for the strategic plan? If so, that would make a terrible mess of local planning arrangements.

Sir George Young: The answer is to be found on page 83, part III, of schedule 1 which deals with transitional provisions. There we have taken on board what the hon. Gentleman said. There is provision for continuity of plans so that useful work does not have to be jettisoned. I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain in more detail how that will operate. We had a lengthy debate on continuity and the transitional provisions. What we have now done enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that useful planning work continues and that we can move over to the new system of unitary development plans as soon as possible.
To introduce an EIP at an earlier stage for the draft guidance would create a completely unnecessary measure of duplication and unnecessarily prolong the development planning process. I commend the approach in the Bill and ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Cowans: I do not intend to press the amendment to the vote, but I leave the Minister with the thought that it is precisely because the guidance is not a tablet of stone and could be varied from the sublime to the ridiculous hour by hour, day by day, week by week that it is vital that the matter should be brought back to the House. I invite him to look once again at the issue. He did not mention one vital point. Yes, the public will be consulted, but there will be no input after the Secretary of State, having looked at the responses in private, makes a decision. It is at that point that hon. Members are entitled to have a say. However, as I say, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 84, line 13, at end insert—
', paragraph 2 of Schedule 4'.
This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 21 of schedule 1 deals with the transitional period between 1 April 1986 and the issuing of a commencement order for a local planning authority to begin preparing a unitary development plan. It provides that the London boroughs

and metropolitan districts will be empowered to continue local plan work, which picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) a few moments ago.
Paragraph 21(2) sets out the necessary powers from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for them to do so. As it stands, the paragraph inadvertently omits paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the 1971 Act which exempts a London borough which wishes to undertake a review or survey of a development in its area from considering matters which the GLC has already reviewed or surveyed. The amendment inserts "paragraph 2 of schedule 4" and it will ensure that the London boroughs have full powers to continue their local planning work during the transitional period. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.

LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREAS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I understand that the Opposition do not wish to move amendment No. 78.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I be allowed to move the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may move the amendment if he so desires.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 3, line 24, after 'effect', insert
'subject to the Secretary of State reporting to Parliament on the arrangements to be made to ensure the satisfactory co-ordination and integration of the responsibilities and work of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Museum of London and the City of London.'.
I want to say a few words on the amendment because I am a member of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Labour Members who look somewhat aggrieved because I have moved the amendment should remember that I am not one of the Government's most fervent supporters of the Bill. This is an important, if peripheral, matter. It illustrates the unfortunate nature of the Bill, and the way in which it has been handled means that we have not been able to debate in detail some important peripheral issues.
I thank my hon. Friends for seeing representatives from the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, and other bodies, who believe that London has a solution which is broadly acceptable and can be made to work. On the other hand, I ask my hon. Friends to recognise the grave concern among archivists all over the country about the fact that the arrangements elsewhere have not been sufficiently carefully thought through.
The Bill was conceived as a political act, designed to deal with what the Government reckoned to be a major political problem. However, its enormous ramifications in areas which are peripheral but of real intrinsic importance were not sufficiently thoroughly thought through.
11.45 pm
I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their efforts to ensure that the solution in London is acceptable, but I urge them to have further discussions with archivists and others who are very concerned about the arrangements for the metropolitan counties.
If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) persists in looking aggrieved, I shall speak until midnight. I know a great deal about this subject.

Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Gentleman considers that he knows a great deal about most subjects. He frequently entertains the House with his knowledge. However, there are some matters a little further on in the Bill that are important in a wider way to other parts of the country. We should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would permit us to consider them.

Mr. Cormack: My intention was to speak for about three or four minutes, and that is what I have done. However, I believe that it is important that hon. Members should recognise one another's special interests. People all over the country are gravely concerned about this matter. They have devoted their lives to a profession of considerable importance. I therefore make no apology for airing their interests and concerns in the House this evening. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman, whose party tabled the amendment, is not prepared to move it. There would have been a sense of real grievance if the amendment had not been moved this evening.

Sir George Young: I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), because he has a fund of interest and expertise in this area.
I understand that there is a misprint, in that the amendment refers to the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts instead of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.
My hon. Friend acknowledged that good progress has been made in London. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments are to exercise new responsibilities after abolition, and we are confident that they will carry them out very well.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the concern about archives outside London. My right hon. Friend and other Ministers in the Department are actively pursuing the matter with appropriate bodies to try to find a more satisfactory solution. We undertake to keep my hon. Friend fully informed of the progress that we are able to make.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3

NATIONAL PARKS AND COUNTRYSIDE FUNCTIONS

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 92, line 15, leave out from 'counties,' to end of line 17 and insert—
'the district councils in the metropolitan county or counties shall become constituent councils of the board in place of the council of that county or the councils of those counties'.
This is a technical amendment designed to remove possible doubts concerning the continued application after abolition of the legislation which presently governs the constition of the Peak Park joint planning board in so far as the metropolitan district councils are concerned.
It is our intention that the board should continue to be governed by schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972 and schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning

Act 1971, and that the transfer to the Metropolitan district councils of the appointment and funding functions as presently exercised by the metropolitan county councils should be effected within the existing legislative framework in association with the provisions of paragraph 2(1) of schedule 3 to the Bill. However, there is now some doubt as to whether the Bill as presently drafted is fully consistent with the objective. The amendment is designed to remove that doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

ROAD TRAFFIC

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 116, line 18, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
10.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is not satisfied in the case of Greater London or a metropolitan county that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under Part V of the 1984 Act as are necessary to secure the control, management, development and extension of any system of traffic control which relates to two or more of those authorities, he may make an order under this paragraph.
(2) An order under this paragraph may transfer to the Secretary of State such functions of the local authorities in question under that Part of that Act as he considers necessary to enable him to secure the control, management, development and extension of that system.
(3) The Secretary of State may delegate, with or without restrictions, the exercise of any function transferred to him under this paragraph to the local authority from which it was transferred.
(4) Before exercising any function transferred to him under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult any local authority appearing to him to be likely to be affected unless it appears to him that the exercise of the function will only have a temporary effect on the system of traffic control in question; and any local authority from which a function has been so transferred shall consult the Secretary of State before exercising any function under the 1984 Act in any manner which may affect the exercise by the Secretary of State of any function so transferred.
(5) The Secretary of State may recover from each local authority from which functions have been transferred by an order under this paragraph such proportion of the expenses reasonably incurred by him in exercising the functions transferred by that order as may be agreed between the local authorities from which functions were so transferred or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by him.
(6) A sum recoverable by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (5) above may be recovered by him summarily as a civil debt.
(7) The Secretary of State shall revoke an order made under this paragraph in relation to a system of traffic control in operation in Greater London or a metropolitan county if at any time he is satisfied that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under Part V of the 1984 Act as are necessary to secure the control, management, development and extension of the system.
(8) An order under this paragraph may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities and provisions amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 41.

Mrs. Chalker: Amendment No. 47 is necessary because paragraph 10, as drafted, would not be effective


if there were no agreement on joint arrangements for urban traffic control. As I said in Committee and to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, it recasts the Secretary of State's reserve power to take over responsibility for urban traffic control systems extending to more than one borough or district. The purpose of the reserve power is to ensure the continuance of the major benefits which these computerised systems for traffic control achieve. Amendment No. 41 is purely technical and consequential on amendment No. 47.
I very much hope that where UTC systems extend to more than one area, the borough and district councils will come to joint arrangements to manage the systems. They could do this in various ways — by a voluntary joint committee, by a lead district or borough method or by employing consultants. However, reserve powers are needed in case there is no such agreement in any areas.

Mr. Snape: These amendments illustrate perfectly the complexity of trying to operate the Bill's provisions for district co-operation and consultation and Government guidance and reserve powers. If they are all as simple as the hon. Lady has just said, why were they not included in our fairly long deliberations in Committee? It is not right glibly to pass over these amendments by saying that they are necessary to tidy up the Bill, because one of the amendments replaces two subparagraphs with eight.
The deeper and longer one looks into the Bill, the more unworkable it appears. It is clear from amendment No. 47 that the Government have little confidence in the districts co-operating on traffic control systems. We have doubts that they will co-operate effectively on any of the matters of common interest identified in the Bill.
In Committee the Minister of State made more than 40 references to the need for consultations co-operation, reserve powers and strategic guidance. Amendment No. 47, by subparagraph (4) introduces yet another requirement for districts to consult the Government, on top of the powers with which the amendment is primarily concerned. Such confusion is symptomatic of the bad drafting of the Bill and its unworkability in regard to highways and traffic. It is further evidence that a county highways authority is the only means of managing roads efficiently and effectively.
The Department said in its paper entitled "Arrangements for Staffing the New Structure" that urban traffic control would be transferred to a residual body. It is absurd to suggest that UTC should be administered by a body with no highway responsibilities. That is another example of the recipe for confusion inherent in the Bill.
The Committee dealt with data research and collection, which, I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, are essential elements of transport planning. It cannot be done rationally at district scale because so much travel crosses district boundaries. Even if individual districts could afford it, there would be wasteful duplication if they independently carried out analysis work on the same data. Similarly, road safety and accident investigation are important and specialised topics for which, the Committee agreed, all county councils had formed small specialist teams. That expertise could not be dissipated between districts without a significant loss in effectiveness. Similar arguments could be applied to the design and maintenance of bridges, the design of roads, street lighting, resource allocation for highway maintenance and to materials testing laboratories.
Time after time in Committee we asked the hon. Lady to come up with expert evidence of the sensibleness—if that is what she thinks it is—of the Bill in regard to those responsibilities. We still eagerly await the favourable view of just one professional body.
The hon. Lady said in Committee that she felt that these matters could be dealt with more efficiently at district level, and indicated that at present they were dealt with by the existing metropolitan county councils. She seemed to suggest that somehow this was inherently inefficient. Even at this late stage, with just a few minutes to go before the guillotine descends and yet another unworkable clause appears on the statute book, the hon. Lady should produce some evidence to show that this is a simplification which will make traffic control more workable than at present. We have had considerable debate on these matters in Committee and elsewhere, and so far the hon. Lady has produced no such evidence. She should now produce evidence to show that what is proposed in the amendments is better than what was proposed in the Bill. We still await an explanation as to why it was necessary, at this late hour, to multiply two sub paragraphs by four to produce this tidying-up amendment. The onus of proof lies with the Government, and so far it has been singularly lacking.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment epitomises the Government's ludicrous approach to these matters. It is suggested that if the authorities which are left alone to deal with traffic management cannot agree, the Government under subparagraph (2) will take unto themselves the powers which under subparagraph (3) they will delegate back with or without restrictions. On the way round the circuit they will have allocated the bills between the authorities which started off with the responsibility.
This is another example which argues blatantly for the need for strategic authorities, because at the end of the day such an authority will have the power to say, "I am sorry, but we must impose this over the whole area governed by the county or metropolitan county because we must have consistency." Traffic management does not stop at a borough boundary.
This paraphernalia will cost something, add to delay and arrogate to the Secretary of State or the Minister further powers centrally. It is just the sort of thing which the Government have been forced to add to the Bill because they know that it requires greater centralisation to work. It is unlikely to be more satisfactory than the present system and merely shows the bureaucratic tangle into which the Government have, yet again, got themselves.

Mr. Snape: It seems that we shall get no answers, even at this late hour. The hon. Lady has three minutes in which to reply, and I am perfectly prepared to sit down so that she can do so.
In addition to the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), there is the inevitable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make another speech, he must have the leave of the House.

Mr. Snape: I did not think that I would need the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady still shows no signs of replying, although she still has time to do so.
Perhaps I can point out to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that subparagraph (8) is the


inevitable catch-all which lies behind every clause in the Bill—that anything we have forgotten the Secretary of State can do anyway, because that is how he drafted it. I hope that in the two minutes available to her the hon. Lady will provide some answers.

Mrs. Chalker: In the minute or so left to me I wish to say just three things about the amendment. First, we believe that it is important to keep the expertise together. Secondly, I believe that in different metropolitan areas and in some London boroughs it may be possible to keep these expert teams together without recourse to the reserve powers. I should, however, be failing in what I believe is an important aspect of traffic management if I did not take reserve powers in the Bill in case there is a breakdown, not necessarily immediately after abolition, but perhaps some years hence.
I am always prepared to do something that will safeguard the speedy movement of traffic in London and the metropolitan areas. That is why the reserve powers are there—not to be used in the first instance, but to ensure that we have the best technology available, which was developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I recommend SCOOT—the split cycle and offset optimisation technique — to any district in this country and especially abroad where it will sell well.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 117, line 8, at end insert—

'Commencement

13. Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by this Part of this Schedule may be exercised at any time after the passing of this Act so as to take effect on or after the abolition date.'.— [Mrs. Chalker.]

It being Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to the order [11 February].

Bill, not amended in Committee, and as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — Rate Support Grant (Scotland)

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1985, dated 14th March 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
After last night's debate, there may be a slight sense of déjà vu about this debate. Nevertheless, this is an important order for ratepayers and I wish to explain fully the reasons behind it.
The order is a brief one with a simple purpose, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House in his statement on 7 March. It increases the amount of aggregate Exchequer grant for 1985–86 by £38·5 million so that the domestic element of rate support grant can be increased by the same amount. The additional grant makes it possible for the level of domestic rate relief to be increased to 8p from the 5p which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in December as part of the 1985–86 rate support grant settlement.
The decisions by local authorities about rates attract widespread comment each year, and 1985 is no exception —especially as there is a further and confusing factor in the rates equation. But revaluation is not a novel concept. Regular revaluations are an accepted feature of the system in Scotland. Indeed, valuations were reviewed continuously until the passing of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956.
Since then, there have been revaluations in 1961, in 1966 when the Labour Government were in power, in 1971, in 1978 when the Labour party was again in power, and this year. Opposition Members accept that principle, which they reaffirmed as recently as the debate on the rate support grant order on 24 January. They seem to have altered their view only as the impact of revaluation on the domestic sector became apparent, although they leave out of account altogether the impact on rates of high expenditure by local authorities, a matter to which I shall return later.
Hon. Members will be familiar in general terms with the changes that revaluation will make to the shares of the rating burden borne by different sectors of ratepayers. As a great many figures have been produced on this recently it may help if I set out the position.
On 1 November last year the assessors, as required by statute, provided estimates of the outcome of revaluation to each rating authority—that is, the regions and islands councils—and to the authorities, the district councils, within them. The same information was provided to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the basis of these estimates of rateable value for each authority, by class of subject and assuming expenditure and grant as in 1984–85 terms, the post-revaluation picture in national terms which emerged indicated that the domestic share of the rate burden would go up by 17 per cent., the industrial would fall by 25 per cent., the commercial by 1 per cent. and that the "other" category, covering mainly public undertakings, would come down by 11 per cent. It was clear, therefore, that there would be a significant increase in the domestic rate burden and that some action was needed to mitigate the effect of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer in 1985–86.
On the basis of those estimates and in the light of my right hon. Friend's consultations with the Convention of


Scottish Local Authorities he made his proposals for the 1985–86 rate support grant settlement. They are contained in the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1985, and in the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1985, both of which were approved by the House on 24 January.
In particular, industrial derating was reduced to 40 per cent. and domestic rate relief was increased fivefold, taking it from the equivalent of 1p to 5p. That substantial increase was in part financed by a significant increase of £19 million in aggregate Exchequer grant which was announced as part of the settlement. The effect of the increase in domestic rate relief was to halve the effect of revaluation on the domestic sector, reducing the shift in the rating burden from 17 per cent. to 8 per cent. Making an allowance of 5 per cent. for inflation between 1984–85 and 1985–86, these arrangements would have meant an increase of 13 per cent. in the rating burden on the domestic sector provided, and this is an important proviso, that authorities spent in line with their guidelines in 1985–86 and reduced expenditure in response to the general abatement of grant in 1984–85.
I may say that the convention has not disputed the method on which these figures have been worked out. The method has been used consistently throughout our discussions with the convention as the most satisfactory way of estimating the effects of revaluation on different groups of rate payers.
If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who keeps muttering about the revaluation in England, had attended the three-hour debate that we had on the subject, he might have heard the answer.

Mr. George Robertson: I attended the debate last night. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman then were as weak as those that he puts forward now. They do not persuade a single Opposition Member. He would not persuade a fraction of the Tory party conference at Perth, if he dared to put forward those feeble arguments.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not listen, because I have not yet reached the subject matter of the order. I am giving the House facts and figures, to which the hon. Gentleman might like to listen.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How is it that the West Lothian county cricket club, which has a modest ground at Boghall in Linlithgow, pays more than twice the rates of the famous and large Worcester county cricket ground in England?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has lived through enough revaluations to know that valuations are made by an independent assessor, and if they are unfair, there is a right of appeal against them.
The convention always forecasts higher figures because it assumes that all authorities will overspend. Not surprisingly, the convention forecasts were self-fulfilling, but this does not invalidate the figure of my right hon. Friend of what was available to ratepayers if authorities had spent in line with guidelines. However, overspending by authorities resulted in a very different picture—an increase in the domestic rate burden of 24 per cent. in Scotland. As one local authority after another struck its rate in the course of February, the extent of the burden on the domestic ratepayer became clearer.
In addition, in February much fuller details of the result of revaluation, as it affected individual properties, became

known as the assessors delivered the new valuation rolls to authorities. While average movements in aggregate levels of rateable value for each area by sector had been known from November 1984, it became apparent that there was a significant range around the averages with some large increases, as we have learnt recently.
It became clear that the information which emerged in February about the level of some individual increases in domestic rate bills required urgent further action. My right hon. Friend took that action at the earliest possible opportunity.
On 7 March he announced a further substantial increase in the domestic element of rate support grant of £38·5 million. This enabled him to increase the total of the domestic element from £14 million in 1984–85 to £102 million in 1985–86, and increase domestic rate relief from 1p in the pound to 8p—an eight fold increase. This has been very widely welcomed on behalf of domestic ratepayers who were facing high rate bills. The relief of 8p in the pound means a reduction of £1 a week, or 11·5 per cent., in the average domestic rate bill in Scotland in 1985–86. It replaces domestic rate relief worth only 14p a week on average rate bills introduced at the time of the 1978 revaluation presided over by the Labour Government. It is clear evidence of the Government's concern for the domestic ratepayer.
Had local authorities spent in line with the Government's plans in 1984–85 and in 1985–86, domestic rates in Scotland would have increased by only 6·5 per cent. As it is, domestic rates will increase by 17·2 per cent. The difference between 6·5 per cent. and 17·2 per cent. is accounted for, not by revaluation or by reduction in the rate support grant percentage, but by the expenditure decisions of local authorities and their consequences.
Therefore, two thirds of the increase in domestic rates nationally is still due to overspending by authorities, and one third to inflation and a reduction in the grant percentage.
I appreciate that individual authorities differ from the national picture. Co-operative authorities spending at guideline are especially affected by the cut in the grant percentage. I have listened carefully to representations made by those local authorities and, indeed, by those who represent them, and I have said that we shall take those representations into account when considering the grant settlement for 1986–87.
What we have done will be of proportionately greater benefit to the ratepayers of authorities which set low rate poundages. That is because the domestic rate relief is paid per pound of rateable value, not per pound of the rate bill. Thus, for instance, a ratepayer in Perth and Kinross will proportionately benefit more than a ratepayer with the same rateable value in Glasgow. For the same reason, ratepayers with high rateable values will, in cash terms, benefit more than will those with low rateable values.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Before the Minister concludes—

Mr. Ancram: I was not about to.

Mr. Dewar: I know, but just in case the hon. Gentleman comes to a premature end, having run out of good ideas and Scottish Office oratory, will he say why, if everything is so wonderful in the best of all Tory worlds, the Secretary of State for Scotland said on television that,


because of the political consequences of the maladministration of the rating system, it is essential that there is action to reform it before the next general election? Is that a guarantee that there will be legislation before the next general election, and that the reform will be on the statute book, or is it merely a vague expression of intent that will not result in action?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way, he may get the answer to that before long.
In his statement of 7 March, my right hon. Friend said that the cost of increasing domestic rate relief would be financed by adjustments within his existing policies and expenditure programmes. He has now worked out the details and announced the necessary cash limit changes today. Those which set the provision for industry will be reduced by £5·2 million, all of which bears upon provision for the Scottish development agency; roads and transport will be reduced by £4·8 million; and the hospital and community health parts of the health programme will be reduced by £5 million. My right hon. Friend will be able to adjust the agriculture Vote, which is reduced by £0·5 million, and the cash block for local authority housing, which was reduced by £10·5 million before the cash limits were announced on 19 March.
We expect to be able to abate the effect of the changes considerably by exercising the flexibility that we now have to carry forward to 1985–86 a proportion of the capital underspend in the current year. Although the exact amount cannot be announced until outturn figures are available, the capital programmes concerned look as though they will be substantially underspent. The result of our action to increase domestic rate relief to the level proposed in the order is almost to negate the average effect of revaluation on the domestic sector as a whole. In 1985–86, the domestic rate burden increased by £185 million. Of this, £90 million was accounted for by revaluation. That has been almost wiped out by the £88 million of domestic rate relief.
The remaining £95 million of the increase is accounted for by local authority overspending at £63 million and the reduction in grant and inflation of £32 million.
I accept, of course, that individual properties will have fared very differently in the revaluation. For those whose valuations have increased above the average there will still be significant increases in rate bills despite what we have been able to do for the domestic sector as a whole. I should like to stress again that any individual ratepayer who feels that his new valuation is incorrect has the opportunity to test on appeal the evidence underlying the valuation.
I am very much aware of the widespread criticism of the rating system which has resulted from revaluation in Scotland. The most unsatisfactory aspects of the rating system are fully appreciated by us. Since we came to office we have searched, so far without success I have to agree, for an acceptable alternative, and we have made significant improvements in the system, most recently in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984.
We are still looking for ways of removing the objectionable features of the present system of local government finance and a ministerial study into the whole question was announced last October. As I told the House

yesterday, I am a member of the study team whose remit covers Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are determined to find an agreed solution to the problem. We believe that our present system is, despite the efforts we have made, still unfair. Revaluation has highlighted the problems. While we have to say that there are no easy answers, we are determined to find a more satisfactory system.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister think that it is responsible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to commit and pledge himself to action at a stage at which his junior Minister has just made it clear that he has no idea what the action should be?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that the review was set up in October last year with the intention of finding a solution to the problems that exist within local government financing. We are determined as a result of that review to find a solution, but, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, if I am right in my recollection of a speech he made the other day, this is not a matter to be rushed. If we are to find a proper answer to the real problems that exist, we must take our time in doing so.
In returning to the order, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it substantially mitigates the effects of revaluation on domestic ratepayers and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I find it difficult to follow that. I am intrigued that the Minister is one of the three wise men who are currently studying rates reform. I referred on another occasion to the three wise monkeys. I am not sure in regard to rates reform whether he is hear no evil, speak no evil or see no evil. If the order were the good news for domestic ratepayers that the Government have heralded it as being, it would not be sneaked through the House after midnight.
I am tired of Scotland's Ministers putting Scottish affairs on the back burner. We are not saying no to this £38·5 million aid to domestic ratepayers, but it will not compensate them for the shift that took place in the revaluation or the cut that has been engineered by the Government in the rate support grant.
Ministers may feel that they will buy off trouble in Conservative Association executives. I wish there was a Conservative party conference every month — [HON. MEMBERS: "Or reselection."] If there were mandatory reselection for Conservative Members not one of them, save perhaps the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), would be chosen again as a candidate. But he let me down the last time. I was about to take away his title "the Buchan bulldog" because he sounded more like a Banff spaniel when he supported the Minister in his most recent announcement about domestic rate relief.
This increase comes nine weeks after the Government assured us that the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86 was adequate. We told the Government then, and we say again, that they have added to the hardship facing Scottish ratepayers. Year after year they have reduced the amount of rate support grant for essential local government services. The chickens are coming home to roost.
When the Minister talks about local authorities being in excess of guidelines, he should bear in mind that 36 authorities are within the guidelines, or within 1 per cent.
of the guidelines. I shall deal later with debt interest charges which are causing problems for local authorities in fixing their budgets.
The Government have reduced rate support grant from 68·5 per cent. in 1979–80 of approved relevant expenditure —in other words, programmes that were approved by the Scottish Office—to 56·6 per cent. for 1985–86. I think the Minister will confirm that, with the additional £38·5 million, the new rate support grant is 57·7 per cent.
The Government have gone over the top in their treatment of ratepayers in the coming year. They have mishandled the revaluation exercise and miscalculated the effects of their own rate support grant settlement for the coming year. In respect of local authorities, the Minister reminds me of the police inspector in "Casablanca" who, once the hero and the heroine have escaped, says, "Round up the usual suspects." It is always somebody else, never the Government, who is to blame.

Mr. Gerald Malone: If I can persuade the hon. Gentleman to come back for a moment from Harry's bar in Casablanca, will he please tell the House what he would have done about revaluation, because the Labour party agreed to that principle?

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman should have been here last night when we spent three hours on the subject of revaluation. When the Minister says he has a feeling of déjà vu, I have a feeling of weariness, because we are given no answers by this Government about the real problems that face Scottish ratepayers. In the early hours of yesterday morning the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) rightly said that percentages do not really bring home the significance of what is happening over the rate support grant cutbacks and the effects of revaluation.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) asked him a particularly interesting question in view of the debate that took place on 28 July 1982, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said:
The Minister should make it clear now that there will be no more flirting with this halfway house and parboiled non-solution. He should tell us that there will be a proper revaluation in 1985–86."— [Official Report, 28 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1195.] That was the hon. Gentleman's view then and it appeared to be the view of the Labour party at that time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he disagrees with it.

Mr. Craigen: That view was not held when there was a massive cut in rate support grant. The Minister did not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) at that time. More significantly, the Government were prepared to proceed with a partial revaluation, and they have already established the precedent of fixed divisors between domestic and non-domestic ratepayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden needs no lessons from the Government Front Bench, although occasionally he listens to me. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has a district authority in excess of guidelines, although he shifts within the Scottish Office before the problems become too great for him.
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that he told COSLA that the average increase in domestic rates will be

significant this year as a result of the changes in the rates support grant and in revaluation. If the Minister thinks that the increase is acceptable, his view is different from that of the Treasury, which is always reminding us that it is trying to reduce inflation. Rate increases will be well above the rise in the retail price index in the coming year.
May we have some information about the difficulties that will face commercial ratepayers? There are four categories of commercial ratepayer. I understand that shops, offices and hotels face substantial increases, although the remaining category will enjoy a reduction.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on his recent discussions with COSLA, which wanted him to reinstate the needs element cut. The original rate support grant order had a significant impact upon domestic ratepayers and upon the district councils because of the way in which the Government altered the needs element in the grant.
We cannot ignore the way in which debt charges swallow up local authority resources. Current expenditure guidelines do not deal with loan charges. When the original rate support grant order was determined, interest rates were at 10·4 per cent., and we know what has happened recently. Can we expect a variation order in the foreseeable future?
Revaluation and outstanding appeals were mentioned in the debate yesterday. I think that we brought home to the Minister that it would take some time for many of the appeals to be settled. Will this not destabilise the grant-aid calculations?
Does the Minister refute the point put to him by a COSLA representative, that about £1,000 million has been taken out of the system since this Government came to office as a result of cuts in central Government aid to local authorities? In other words, a £1 billion rake-off by the Government has to be met by the rating system and the ratepayers.
The Government are the author of the present misfortunes facing the rating system and the ratepayers. Local government finance is complex enough at the best of times, but the ratepayers will be concussed by the twin effects of the revaluation and the rate support grant reductions. The Minister will reap the consequences of the whirlwind that he and his colleagues have set in motion.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, perhaps much to the dismay of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), on introducing the order. I might manage to please the hon. Member for Maryhill later in my speech, but now I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on increasing the amount of money for the rate support grant to local authorities to the tune of £38·5 million, which will have the effect of increasing domestic rate relief, as is well known, to 8p per pound of rateable value.
While any additional aid will be welcomed by the ratepayers, the cuts in RSG imposed on the local authorities for 1985–86 are such that there will be a huge impact on those local authorities. The best example that I can give is that of my local authority. I am not afraid to say this, because not the least affected is Banff and Buchan district council in my constituency, which has suffered a reduction of £857,429. Taking the 1984–85 needs element, that reduction was equivalent to a rate of 4p in the pound.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that a change in the distribution formula was introduced in 1984–85, which was expected to reduce the grant distributed to the district councils by the equivalent of a penny in the pound over the period of four years until 1987–88. However, as a result of the further reduction in support from Her Majesty's Government, and the transfer of support from the districts to the regions and the islands councils, Banff and Buchan district council may not receive any rate support grant needs element in 1986–87, and thereby the equivalent of a further 4p in the pound will require to be met from the rates during this financial year.
In that connection, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter that I received from the director of finance of Banff and Buchan council on 23 January 1985, in which he said:
As you will be aware, not only has the Secretary of State reduced the total amount of Rate Support Grant payable to Scottish Local Authorities, but he has also changed the formula used to distribute this Grant in such a way that Regional Councils receive more Rate Support Grant (Needs), and District Councils are paid less.
The director went on to quote the figures which I have just given about the two 4p rates. He said:
In other words, losses of Rate Support Grant (Needs) will push the current District Council's Rate Poundage up by 61·5 per cent. over 2 years. The basis for this re-allocation of the available funds has not been made clear to me, but I understand has been made because the judgment of the Secretary of State is that it should take place.
That is totally unacceptable to members of the Banff and Buchan district council, and it is similarly totally unacceptable to me.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way. Last night I tried unsuccessfully to get into the debate, and many hon. Members overstayed their leave, so I am going to do it tonight.
While the increase in relief, which is the subject of the order, has helped a little, the reductions imposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 1985–86 and the prospects for future years will place a heavy burden on a low-spending authority such as Banff and Buchan, which has desperately endeavoured to keep within the guidelines set by my right hon. Friend.
This further reduction in rate support grant, with an assessment for 1985–86 of 72·26p in the pound per head of population, using the client-group approach, and after taking account of the specific grants, will mean that Banff and Buchan receive no rate support grant for needs element for 1986–87. The equivalent figure for 1984–85 was 53·11p. That implies for next year an increase of 36 per cent. My right hon. Friend has now announced the final calculation of the extraordinary expenses grant, which is the oil grant for 1981–82.
My local authority in 1985–86 will require to repay the sum of £150,428 of a provisional grant already received. When one considers the massive cut made between 1984–85 and 1985–86 of over £800,000, one can understand the great difficulty that my district council is facing in assessing a rate value which is not penal to the ratepayers in my constituency. It is therefore imperative that my right hon. Friend should consider two important factors in relation to the allocation of rate support grant.
The first is the increase in the threshold below which district councils receive no needs element of rate support grant, which should be revised to be in line with the rate of inflation. Secondly, no authority should lose grant per annum more than the equivalent of a penny rate as a result of any change in the distribution formula.
I am well aware that the relief that has been granted by my right hon. Friend in the order has been made in an attempt to reduce the tremendous burden that faces domestic ratepayers. I need not remind him of the largest public protest that has ever been known in Scotland over the rises which domestic ratepayers face. To give 8p in relief, as I have said, is commendable, but it is a drop in the bucket compared with what is essential if we are to remove the rates burden from the shoulders and the pockets of those who can ill afford these massive increases.

Mr. Ancram: I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend feels that £88 million is a drop in the ocean. I appreciate the concern of his constituents. I hope he can confirm that the overall combined rating effect — we have to take region and district together—will be a 7·9 per cent. increase for the domestic ratepayer.

Mr. McQuarrie: That may be so, but a 7·9 per cent. increase, based on the revaluations means that the majority of my constituents who are householders or ratepayers will be required to pay a greater sum this year than last year. Whether it is a 7 per cent. or a 17 per cent. increase, it is still considerable.
I am aware that my hon. Friend had nothing to do with the recommendations agreed in 1982 by Parliament and which received the support of Opposition Members. I am sure that all my constituents and those of other hon. Members object to the savage way in which the assessors have made their decisions on the revaluations, which my right hon. Friend has tried to relieve by placing the order before the House. Some of the revaluations are monstrous. I have recommended all constituents who feel aggrieved about their valuations to make a formal appeal to the assessor. The answer is to have a complete review of the rating system in Scotland. The present system is archaic, and it has placed a great burden on those who pay rates.
It is no use the Opposition claiming that the Conservative Government created the problem, because it was created by the last Labour Government, who did nothing to solve it. The system has dragged on from one year to another for too long. Each year the situation becomes more difficult, with fewer people paying rates because of the large number who are living on social security.
Although the order is intended to be specifically for the benefit of domestic ratepayers, one must not forget, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, the small and large businesses, which are suffering severely. We must look to measures which will relieve the hardship on these sectors.
I do not propose to read to the House the correspondence from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, as it will have been sent to all hon. Members. I draw attention only to the yellow sheet, which shows the Scottish revaluation, underlining the necessity to take action now.
Despite what has been said by the Opposition, this relief should be welcomed by all parties in the House. We want to find a satisfactory solution to the problem once and for all.

Mr. Dewar: What is it?

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. In the first instance I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends give some thought to removing the burden of education, police, transport and fire costs from the local authorities and bringing them into central Government, though not taking away the power of local authorities to operate the services. That is one means by which the rate funding incurred by a local authority could be reduced and brought into the national Exchequer. That is one of the small considerations of which my right hon. Friend might take cognisance when reviewing the matter at ministerial level.
All hon. Members represent ratepayers, and I believe that hon. Members of all parties want to find a solution. My right hon. Friend is making strenuous representations direct to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister that a solution must be found now. The solution will be found; not because there is a Tory party conference, not because we in the Conservative party do not have re-selection, as do the Opposition, not because we fear defeat at the polls, but because there are Conservative Members who are honest.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not give way to me last night, and I shall not give way to him tonight.
There must be no fudging now on a matter which is of the greatest importance to all hon. Members, whatever their political allegiance. We must be seen to be looking after the interests of the people who elected us, in order to ensure that the ratepayers of Scotland are not disadvantaged against any other part of the United Kingdom.
Considerable complaint has rightly been made in Scotland that England has not had a revaluation since 1973. The revaluations and rates currently fixed by local authorities in England in many respects are much lower than those in Scotland.
The order will lead to the elimination of a penal tax on every householder in Scotland whose property has been the subject of revaluation, including council house tenants, who have faced large rent increases from local authorities. The action that my right hon. Friend has taken against high-spending authorities is to be commended. I welcome the order and I hope that by this time next year we shall have seen the last of the rating system in its present form. I hope also that a new system will be introduced and enacted in the next Session that will meet with the approval of the general body of ratepayers in Scotland.
Last Saturday, Lord Whitelaw said at Helensburgh that there must be a change in the rating system. He added that he had discussed the matter with the Prime Minister and with the Cabinet. He urged that we should legislate and introduce a new system in the next Session to ensure that a successor scheme is brought into effect. That is what the people of Scotland want and that is what Conservative Members will fight for. I hope that we shall receive the support of Members of all parties in this place to achieve that aim.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I usually enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), and I enjoyed his contribution this evening. The first part of his speech, which was well rehearsed, probably came from the Buchan district council. The second part showed at least that he has a good sense of humour. I enjoyed both parts of his speech.
We are dealing with a difficult subject. I have examined my file on rating and revaluation and discovered a host of unanswered oral questions in my name. When Scottish questions were last taken on the Floor of the House we did not even reach question No. 8. That leads me to observe that we need a serious debate on the principles of valuation and revaluation.
I am sure that the Minister made a good speech, but I did not understand the parts that I heard. I am sure that the parts that I did not hear, because of the noise, were good. He seemed to add nothing to a solution of the problem now. We should be more concerned with finding an answer now, not in the distant future.
I feel a sense of failure because I am almost tempted to support some parts of the case that the Minister was presenting. He is clearly the underdog. He does not have a Friend in the Chamber.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Brown: I heard no great evidence of support for his case on Monday, Tuesday or today. If what I have heard since Monday is support, I would rather have opposition. At least I would know what others were about.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that we have been dealing with Scottish business since Monday. This is the third day of our consideration of Scottish business. According to my calculations, some of us have now spent up to 20 hours on Scottish business. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that destroys completely the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen)?

Mr. Brown: I have forgotten what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said. However, the debate should have taken place at an earlier hour. We probably all agree about that. That being so, I invite the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to make his own speech.
I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present this evening. I am aware that he has a Cabinet meeting tomorrow morning, but I think that he should have attended the debate.
The Government's record on rating is abysmal. There have been many promises in the past. I remember the Prime Minister's promises of 1974 and 1979. Indeed, even yesterday she left the impression that there was a commitment to reform or even to abolish the domestic rating system. Therefore, I am a bit sceptical about what is being said at the moment. It contrasts with what has been said in the past when nothing has been delivered. It has been associated with the inevitable attacks on local government.
A slight change is taking place. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan never once said that he was representing a profligate local authority. The overall picture, that all the problems in local government have been created because


of one or two Labour-controlled authorities, is nonsense. More and more people who take the trouble to look at the facts and figures are coming to that conclusion.
The issue is surely that there has been an increase in the rate burdens on two categories of ratepayers — commercial and domestic. We are just now getting information on the extent of those increases. Very little of those increases—this is where I agree with the Minister —is due to the revaluation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill can make his own defence of what was said a couple of years ago. I agree with him. I am in the privileged position that I speak for nobody but myself. I shall not even be answerable to the Provan constituency party for much longer. Therefore, I say definitely that I am in favour of regular revaluation within the rating system.
I would not make any great criticism of a Government who decide that they do not want an upheaval in a possible election year. I do not fault the Government for the mechanics of these matters. The Labour Government postponed the revaluation for two years. I do not remember the reason, but it did not seem very convincing. It was supposed to be too soon after reorganisation. Nevertheless, there were practical reasons. I am saying only that it was justifiable for the Labour Government to postpone it at that time, just as it may be for this Government for other reasons.
It is not the revaluation that has created the problem but the fact that local government is not popular. I have said this before. Conservative Members have a heavy responsibility for always attacking local government. They say that it is inefficient. Of course, they criticise Labour-controlled authorities. That sounds good. It might satisfy the nice ladies in the women's section of the Conservative party who do not know much about the facts of political life, but Conservative Members will not get away with that in the House.

Mr. Hirst: I admire the hon. Gentleman's reasonable point of view. Does he support the kind of spending plans that have been put forward by, for example, Edinburgh district council?

Mr. Brown: I shall neither defend nor criticise Edinburgh district council. I have enough bother trying to find out how Glasgow arrives at its decisions. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not know much about Edinburgh. If he sticks to Bearsden and Strathkelvin and Milngavie, he will be doing all right.
A popular clamour has now built up. A paragraph in the Layfield report said:
Revaluations have always been unpopular with Governments since they are widely misunderstood. The easy way out has been to postpone the evil day. This makes the final reckoning all the more serious.
Obviously, if the Government are cutting support to local authorities and if there are two years of other cuts and reduction, when revaluation comes it makes it worse. That is what Conservative Members are not facing. Indeed, the Government invited comments on their White Paper of August 1983, after the election. I wonder how many of those Conservative Members who are now squealing made any representations at that time to change the rating system or to abolish domestic rates. Two hands have been raised. I am delighted to know that. Those hon. Members can

speak for themselves. However, there was no great clamour from the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) or for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) for the abolition of the domestic rate, even though they were invited to comment.
May I just—[Interruption.] Is there a private battle going on? I wish to point out to the Minister that Conservative Back Benchers are running scared. There is a great panic. In the past, Labour Members have been guilty of saying, "Oh, it was not me. It was the Government who did it. I have nothing to do with such Government decisions." The Parliament Under-Secretary of State, however, will not be able to opt out by using that argument.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman is being very fair, but I hope that he will acknowledge that for many years I have demonstrated the fact that the rating system is not democratic, combining taxation and democracy. I have said that again and again for 20 years.

Mr. Brown: I am not making a personal attack. I have some regard for the hon. and learned Gentleman, although that regard is reduced when I read some of the stuff that he writes in the Daily Express.
I recognise that individual Members have long argued that the rating system is not satisfactory. The trouble is that they have not suggested any alternative that has been accepted. I do not want to talk about the technicalities of the possible alternatives. I wish only to say that the Secretary of State in his replies, and the Prime Minister, have both left the impression that there is to be some significant change, if not abolition of domestic rates. It must come soon.
We have heard about what the Secretary of State said on Channel 4. According to The Scotsman, he said:
We have had one go at trying to reform rates and everyone was against the alternatives. This time we have to deliver. Not acting at all means that there will be severe political consequences.
We would all agree wih that.
No-one is prepared to put up with the system as it is, and I agree with them.
What does that mean? If the Secretary of State is not
prepared to put up with the system as it is
there must be some change. The Secretary of State is a Cabinet Minister. Why does he not make such statements to the House? Why does he make them on Channel 4? I am entitled to ask the Minister why the Secretary of State can make such a statement, and why Sir James Goold-poor man, trotting up and down—can now say:
I am confident that we will succeed and that the whole country will thank us for it.
What did Sir James mean by that? Has there been some meeting with the Prime Minister? Has agreement been reached on some concession or change.? If so, what is it? The House has a right to know.
I asked a question on Monday, and the Minister was good enough to reply to it. I asked what all this had to do with valuation levels in England. I do not know whether we are to hear from the Scottish National Party, but that has nothing to do with the matter. There is an idea that we are dragging our feet beause we have had more revaluations than England. That does not make a pennyworth of difference to the amount of public expenditure or of Government support to local authorities. That English red herring has nothig to do with the problem


facing us. The second thing that I established—again the Minister was quite helpful—was that, because no legislation allows it, the Government cannot direct assessors to increase rates on commercial properties or to decrease rates on industrial premises. There is no doubt that this problem is a product of valuation in previous legislation to which we have all subscribed.
What concession is likely to be on offer? How will the Conservative party buy off the pressure that is coming from Conservative Members' constituents? What will they be told? Will the Select Committee consider the matter? There is no power to relieve commercial ratepayers. Is that worth examining? It must be established that the burdens on such ratepayers are wrong. Should we demand further relief for domestic ratepayers or should there be more rate support grant for all local authorities, which would reduce everyone's burden?
The House, not somebody watching Channel 4 or talking to Sir James Goold on the telephone, should be told. I do not know whether Conservative Members have met the Prime Minister yet. Will there be concessions, or will they be fobbed off with the information that legislation, which will solve the problem, will be introduced next year? That would be dishonest, although it would be in keeping with the Prime Minister's record. The Minister should say what relief or concessions the Government might be able to come up with in the short term.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate, and it would be helpful if we could have short speeches.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I shall be brief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given a considerable relief to domestic ratepayers. However, there is an inequity in the system and I look to my right hon. Friend to find other ways—I am sure that he will —to extinguish them.
I am unimpressed when I hear Opposition Members criticise the Government for difficulties in local government expenditure. No Opposition Member stops telling us that there should be an increase in such expenditure. Not one of them says that local authorities, which are extravagant, have distorted the system which was invented to protect the domestic, commercial and industrial ratepayer. All Opposition Members favour extravagance. They want the Government to provide more funds and local authorities to provide more services. They never stop saying that we should spend more.
The moment a system which prevents that appalling theft and fraud is established, the Opposition cry, "It is all your fault." If it had any other effects, they would say the same. They would say, "But spend more. Let central Government provide more funds. It is all the fault of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. You have reduced rate support grant and this and that. Just provide the funds", as if the Government were some sort of mad grandmother fairy scrooge who sat on money which she could otherwise bestow upon her children. That is the fallacy of Opposition Members.
The Opposition constantly eschew that there is money when it does not exist, and that the source of our problems

is the fact that it is not thrown about enough. That is not the case. The source of our problems is simply a switching of extravagance. Authorities such as Glasgow which have been extravagant have closed down streets of commerce, and because no rates have been produced, smaller communities have suffered.
The squinting has come about because of irresponsible extravagant authorities. The Secretary of State has done his best to stop that. He has done well in an attempt to prevent the worst effects of that extravagance, and he has corrected it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, although more must be done.
However, the blame rests on those who take the view that the right of a local authority is to be extravagant. That is what the Opposition imagine. I shall not repeat myself, other than to say that fiscal responsibility is essential. The Secretary of State had done his best to redress the squint which extravagance has forced upon the local authority system, but more must be done.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I would contest the view of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that people are demanding undue extravagance from the Government for local authority expenditure. Authorities can no longer maintain even minimal services because of the chipping away that has occurred over the last few years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to my constituency, I shall prove to him that that is true, and it is equally true of the whole of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) took pride in the fact that, unlike the Labour party, the Conservative party has no reselection system. But what has happened with rating will teach Scottish Conservative Members that reselection is very much on the cards, only this time it will be carried out by the electors.
Some Opposition Members earlier today criticised the increase in the television licence fee, but that could be churlish because if the Scottish Tory conference is televised they might think that the more expensive licence is worth every penny.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said that the fact that Scotland had had two revaluations while England had had none was a red herring. At Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday an English Member complained that rates in England had risen by 9 per cent. Yet here we have a Minister stating if not with approval at least with some satisfaction that the increase in Scotland is only 17 per cent. That is no red herring.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has said, the order is welcome in a sense, but it would not be necessary at all if the Secretary of State—under orders from his bosses in Whitehall and the Cabinet — had not consistently cut rate support grant in recent years. It is to be cut by about £70 million from this financial year to next. In 1984–85 rate support grant rose to 60 per cent. of relevant expenditure. If the 1985–86 settlement was restored to that percentage it would provide a further £84 million and reduce the burden on all categories of ratepayers by about 6 per cent.
As for relief on domestic rates, even with the increase from 5p to 8p proposed in the order only three areas—


Moray, Inverness and Lochaber — will have average increases of under 5 per cent. on rates bills. The average increase for all areas will be about 21 per cent.
As the Secretary of State is no doubt well aware, ratepayers in Scotland are outraged at the increases to be imposed. He probably did not expect there to be such anger. His ministerial competence must therefore be in grave doubt, especially as it seems that the Scottish Office has made no request to the Cabinet for extra funds to keep the rate increases down.
That means that the rates relief increases will have to be met from the existing Scottish budget and we all know that that will mean less money for other things, such as health, housing and education, which are already suffering disastrously.
It should not be forgotten that the Scottish revaluation was due in 1982 but was postponed by the Scottish Office and the Government for political reasons, because they judged, fairly accurately, that a general election was in the offing. If the revaluation had gone ahead then, the percentage increase for domestic ratepayers would undoubtedly have been much smaller, especially as there would not have been such a swing in favour of the industrial ratepayer. The Scottish National party's policy at that time was that it was wrong to postpone the revaluation, although it must be stressed that we oppose the entire domestic rating system. Government statements that the system had to be reformed have been bypassed and the Conservatives now have to face the anger of their own supporters in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that it was his party's policy that the revaluation should have gone ahead, but when the order postponing it was announced his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that it would be wrong to oppose the order and went on to say that there was nothing wrong with revaluation and much to be gained from it.

Mr. Stewart: We have never opposed revaluation as a principle. It has to take place from time to time because one cannot continue with the same valuations for years on end. Our objection is to the fact that Scotland has had two revaluations in a period in which England had none.
I was even more horrified to learn that the Secretary of State had been suggesting the introduction of a poll tax to supplement the rates system. That is the worst of both worlds. It is idiocy and not worth considering. It would probably just give the Government yet another excuse to cut rate support grant.
My party favours scrapping domestic rates completely and replacing them with a fully fledged system of local income tax. That would be a progressive tax and thus fairer than either the present system or a poll tax. It would also mean that local government would have some financial autonomy again, and we believe that that is a very important issue.
The incompetence and anti-Scottish prejudice of Ministers at the Scottish Office has been shown up and they fully deserve what is coming to them.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall follow the closing remarks of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), and will not dodge the

opportunity to say firmly what my hon. Friends and I would support to replace the mess of rating in Scotland, which confronts us. It is similar to that outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be a system of local income tax. It would obviously need a measure of equalisation for the regions and districts that do not have the revenue base. As a result it would return greater autonomy, financial accountability and responsibility to the regions and districts. Even Conservative Members would agree that it would be a major improvement on the present position.
The order is disappointing. Commercial rates will not be given a level of assistance, even comparable to that which the Minister announced tonight for domestic rate payers. Let there be no doubt about that level. He re-emphasised in his opening speech that that will be bought at the expense of industry, roads, hospitals, agriculture and housing. That is little recompense to people on waiting lists for housing and hospitals, people in areas of industrial decline, people in agriculture who are suffering great problems at present, and people who would benefit from an injection of capital investment in the infrastructure and the roads network. There is little economic relief for Scotland.
Most interestingly, the Government's panic measure has not even commended itself to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, which at their annual conference in London last weekend dissociated itself completely from the economic policies being pursued by the Government. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) will confirm that the Tory party, which is a minority party in terms of its political representation — [Interruption Hon. Members should look at the opinion polls. At present the Tory party is not in second place, but third. It is a minority political party in Scotland and is heading in the direction of becoming an even smaller minority. That is one of the few positive benefits for Scotland which will come from the complete shambles that the Scottish Office has made of this measure.
It is time to redress the injustice. We shall see what happens in Argyll and Bute. My party would opt for a system of local income tax, which would be fairer, spread the burden better than a poll tax system, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) suggests, and would get away from the position that the Government have placed the ratepayers of Scotland in fairly and squarely tonight. We welcome any relief that is available, but they will do little to reverse the present reality. Therefore, we look forward to reversals at the polls.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said that there should be a local income tax, but they did not say whether there should be a local corporation tax for businesses. If there is no local corporation tax, there will still be revaluation and the anomalies that we are debating tonight.
In my constituency, those anomalies have resulted in Maclays brewery's rates bill being reduced by 12·14 per cent. It may be only accidental that the Younger family has a major shareholding in that brewery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If the Secretary of State, whose family has that shareholding, were here I would be happy to give way


and allow him to answer my point. If the Secretary of State cannot be here to debate an issue of this importance, I shall not withdraw my suggestion.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the implication of the hon. Gentleman's statement, he is suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exercised a corrupt influence on the assessor. In my opinion, that is unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard nothing containing that inference, and so far I have heard nothing that is out of order.

Mr. O'Neill: In Alloa, a short distance from the place about which I spoke, Fine Fare supermarket, which specialises in employing people part-time for about 20 hours a week—the sort of employment that was praised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement—has suffered a 44 per cent. increase in rates as a result of the revaluation. We have riven across Scotland the sort of inconsistencies that I have just mentioned, and I could give chapter and verse for many others. It is a great burden on businesses and individuals.
During tonight's debate, in our discussions last night, in the press, and in a Channel 4 interview, we have seen the Government scurrying to find some kind of solution. I am sure that the Conservative party's Perth declaration on devolution in the 1960s was as worthless as anything that Conservative Members will say at the next Perth conference. This is the Government's biggest foul-up for some time. They have nowhere to hide. They have granted themselves a range of rate-capping powers which mean that no blame can be attached to Scottish local authorities for present rate bills. The blame rests with the Government because of the way in which they have operated the revaluation system.
I remember only too well sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) during debates in the last Parliament when we suggested that we should have revaluation urgently. At that time, Conservative Members did not say a word about it. The only time that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), spoke was to try to change the rating system in respect of outside pipework at the BP chemicals plant at Grangemouth. What happened as a result was that all ratepayers in Central region suffered a 6p in the pound increase in rates. The Government were running along behind the CBI. That was the Government's only contribution to rating reform in the last Parliament, and the ratepayers of Central region know it to their cost.
Had I the time, I could give the House another 10 examples of anomalies in the present system. The system of local government finance and fund raising is in a complete mess, and the only way to change it is not by declarations at Perth, but by a change of Government. If the Gallup poll issued today, which shows Labour ahead of the Tories by 6·5 points, is anything to go by, we shall have to wait at least until 1988 for realistic changes.

Mr. Ancram: I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but if I am to make any answer at all, I must speak now.
Apart from the disgraceful remarks that he made at the beginning, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) should not put his faith in opinion polls. I seem to remember that in 1981 he was doing precisely the same thing. The only poll that matters is the poll on election day itself.
One thing that has become clear during the debate is that the Labour party has no idea of what its policy on valuation or revaluation is. It must be a matter of embarrassment to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when first of all his own Front Bench spokesman tonight denied and then, when challenged on that, misinterpreted, the point that he made in 1982. The hon. Member for Clackmannan is obviously completely out of line with his Front Bench, because the Opposition Front Bench has made it clear that it believes in revaluation and its principles.
Given the figures that I gave earlier, which are established figures and which show that one third of the average rate increases in the domestic sector in Scotland are attributable to revaluation and to the rate support grant settlement, and that two thirds are attributable to local government spending, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was right in saying that it lies ill in the mouth of the Opposition to suggest that local government spending has nothing to do with the rating problems that we see today.
The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was another one who fell into that trap. He referred once again to the chopping of services since 1979. If services have been chopped, how can he explain, on figures that are agreed by COSLA, that even in the current year expenditure is 2 per cent. more in real terms than it was when the Government came into office? That is no chopping of services, and he knows it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr McQuarrie) asked several questions, one of which I answered during his speech. He was right to say that this year the maximum loss in rate support grant was suffered by his authority, but no decisions have been taken for later years. Obviously, as I have already said, we will be taking account of the views expressed by low-spending authorities in reaching our decisions.
The repayment of the oil grant to which my hon. Friend referred arises because the actual expenditure submitted by the council is lower than the estimate submitted in 1980. I am sure that both he and the council will welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend not to make further calculations on the oil gramt for the years 1982–83 and 1983–84.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made a reasoned speech about the whole question of revaluation. There was much in it on which he and I would be in agreement. He pressed me on the point about finding an alternative to the present system of financing local government. I refer him to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave at Question Time yesterday, when in regard to the studies to which I referred earlier, she said:
Those studies, both on the rating system and on the reform of local government finance, are under way. I hope that we shall be able to come to an agreed solution …If everyone sticks to his own pet scheme, we shall not get anywhere.
That is evident from the number of schemes about which we have heard during the past two days. My right hon. Friend ended by saying:


I hope that we shall be able to bring forward proposals which will command sufficient support to put them through." —[Official Report, 26 March, 1985; Vol. 76, c. 211]
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked what response would be made to the convention's request for more grant. As he may know, the convention wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of March to ask him for an increase in grant of £31 million. Within days my right hon. Friend announced an increase in aggregate Exchequer grant of £38·5 million, more than COSLA had asked for.
Then, very much in line with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross was saying, the convention asked for yet more grant in the form of more needs element. He was right in saying that this would encourage local authorities to spend more and perpetuate the problem of high spending, which we have been trying to tackle. If Opposition Members think that the needs element should have gone to help the ratepayers this year, it is worth remembering that it could not have done so because the rate had already been struck. The only way in which an extra needs element could have been used was in terms of expenditure.
As the results of appeals become known, adjustments are made to the resources element of the rate support grant. The system is designed to cope with such changes and translate them into adjustment in grant. Also, in regard to the reduction in rate support grant, it is worth remembering, at the risk of repeating something that has been said on a number of occasions, that the record for the largest reduction in a single year is still held by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan).
The hon. Member for Maryhill also asked about interest rates. The grant to be paid to authorities takes account of interest rates as forecast in November 1984. The forecast will be revised in November 1985, and any additional grant paid. This is a long-established feature of the rate support grant system and it is obviously known to directors of finance when they prepare their budgets.
We have had a useful debate. What is absolutely apparent is that the order, which provides much needed relief for the domestic ratepayer, should be welcomed by every hon. Member. I hope that the efforts which have been made by my right hon. Friend to provide this much needed relief for the sore-pressed ratepayers of Scotland is something upon which the whole House can agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1985, dated 14th March 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 28th March, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Walker relating to the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1985 with the substitution of One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Housing Defects (Newton Aycliffe)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Derek Foster: I make no apologies for detaining the House on this crucial matter for many families in the town of Newton Aycliffe. This is a sad story of Newton Aycliffe folk whose dreams have turned into nightmares. They are the victims of the right-to-buy legislation—the sale of the century. They were stampeded into buying their council houses. They thought they had a bargain. They now know they have a millstone around their necks.
There are 429 houses on the Horndale ⅔ estate built by the Aycliffe development corporation in 1970 and 1971. Of these, 106 are now owner-occupied; 86 were bought from the Sedgefield district council under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980; the rest were bought from the Aycliffe development corporation before the transfer of housing to the Sedgefield district council in 1978.
The council proposes to re-roof 323 of the rented houses on this estate as part of its programme of remedial work under section 51 of the New Towns Act 1981. The district council will receive Government grant towards this work.
The council has offered to re-roof the owner-occupied dwellings at the same time, with the owners meeting the cost which is likely to be about £3,000. This will enable the owners to benefit from the economies of scale and will permit the council to re-roof more of its own dwellings.
Unfortunately, partly because of the very high rate of unemployment in my constituency, many of the owners are quite unable to find £3,000, even if loans were to be made available to them. If the owners cannot afford the work, they may prevent some of their tenant neighbours from benefiting from the Government grant. Moreover, the work will have to be done sooner or later. If it is done later, the cost will be much greater.
How have these unfortunate circumstances arisen? First, the Government ignored the warnings of the Sedgefield district council in its response to the Government's consultation document on the right-to-buy legislation in 1979. In its response the council suggested that there were three categories of houses that should be excluded from the right-to-buy legislation. Among these categories were
dwellings where constructional defects are known or suspected",
particularly houses in respect of which
surveys have established the existence of severe defects in large numbers".
The council said at that time that
it would be improper to sell properties containing defects before remedial works have been carried out".
The Department of the Environment undertook to see that the council's comments would be "studied thoroughly". It has since admitted to the Sedgefield district council that it did not study those documents.
The Department and Ministers brought pressure upon the council not to provide such full information about the defects to prospective buyers, even though earlier advice had been for full disclosure.
It is obvious from scrutiny of the correspondence and of the record of meetings that the Minister was interested


only in implementing the right-to-buy policy with indecent haste, without caring about the consequences for unsuspecting buyers. I have the documents and I shall make them available to the Minister or to anyone else who wishes to see them.
I further contend that the spirit of those meetings was an insult to elected members and to professional council officers, and a betrayal of the constitutional relationship between central and local Government.
As a result of contemptuously ignoring advice from councils such as Sedgefield, and as a result of Ministers' eagerness to boast of the number of houses sold, the Government landed themselves and unsuspecting owner-occupiers throughout the country in a costly mess which led to the Housing Defects Act 1984.
The Government estimate that expenditure under that Act will cost between £170 million and £250 million. The estimate for Sedgefield district council is about £5 million — but by no means all defective houses have been designated under the Act. The houses in Horndale ⅔ are certainly not designated. I cannot understand why those houses have not been designated, especially since the council is to receive a grant for rented houses of the same type on the same estate for the same repairs.
It is open to the council voluntarily to designate the houses, but it would receive no grant towards the £320,000 cost of meeting the repairs since the most severe restraints upon capital spending are being imposed by the Government.
It is also open to the council to seek a special dispensation to allow it to make repair grants available. However, the council has already received between 300 and 400 applications for such grants which it cannot meet because of the same Government constraints on capital spending.
I urge the Minister to designate these houses under the Housing Defects Act, thus guaranteeing grants to the owner-occupiers of Horndale 2/3.
The Minister for Housing and Construction was in Newton Aycliffe on Tuesday this week. He ignored my challenge to see the houses for himself, in spite of knowing about tonight's debate. While he was there he said:
We did not force Sedgefield district council to sell these houses and they need not have done if they thought they were full of faults.
I have documents to prove the Minister's statement to be wrong. I challenge him to retract his statement, to apologise to the district council and to make clear the Government's responsibility to the residents of Horndale.
I do not have time to quote chapter and verse, but I shall quote from one letter. A letter from the Department of the Environment dated 10 May 1982 states:
I am therefore instructed to write to your Council
—that is, Sedgefield district council—
to give form warning that the Secretary of State is contemplating giving your Council notice of his intention to use his powers under Section 23 of the Housing Act 1980 to enable tenants to exercise the right to buy and the right to a mortgage.
That is force in anyone's language. In my contention, the Minister of the day — the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) — forced the council to sell those houses against all advice, and his successor should now admit that.
One of the undeclared objectives of the right-to-buy policy was to shift the burden of housing repairs from the public to the private sector, from the public purse to the

home owner's back. That the unfortunate home owners of Horndale now understand only too well, and they will not readily forgive the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has spoken movingly on behalf of his constituents, the owner-occupiers on the Horndale estate. I understand the predicament in which they find themselves. I should like to try to outline the Government's view of the position because it varies a little from the description given by the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to deal first with the recent visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I also have seen the reports in The Northern Echo and been in touch with my hon. Friend. He seems to have been misreported. What he actually said was that there was no reason why the council should not have sold the dwellings at open market value —in other words, reflecting the defects. As I understand it, he did not make the statement attributed to him in that paper.
While Sedgefield might have wanted certain types of defective houses excluded under the terms of the Housing Act, the tenant has the right to buy, and the important thing is that he should be given full knowledge of the condition of the property — he should be fully aware of the defects. Then it is up to the tenant to make a final decision on whether he wants to buy in the light of the information about his home. I shall return to that matter.
I understand that the owner-occupiers face substantial bills for repairs to the roofs of their homes. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has also made it clear that he is quite happy to return to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and to meet the owners on a subsequent visit, which I understand will be arranged later this summer.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are willing to assist Sedgefield with roof repairs to the properties that it owns on the estate, and he drew a contrast between that assistance and the fact that no financial assistance is apparently available to owner-occupiers. During the passage of the Housing Defects Bill last year, the Government were accused of exactly the opposite, of favouring private owners of defective houses, while doing nothing to help local authorities with similar dwellings. I would not dispute the basic figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I understand that about 125 people have purchased houses on the Horndale estate, about one quarter of them from the development corporation in the 1970s, and about three quarters from Sedgefield council under the right to buy. However, there is some dispute as to whether Sedgefield council made available information about the defects to the roofs to those who bought under the right to buy. That is crucial to the present dispute.
The council has told my Department that it advised individual purchasers of the findings of the Ove Arup consultants' report on defects at Newton Aycliffe, and it also advised purchasers to have a detailed structural survey of their properties. I cannot comment on the veracity of those statements, but they appear to have been made in good faith by the council.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the tenants had been "stampeded" into buying their homes, and that my Department had so pressurised


Sedgefield council to see that council houses were sold quickly under the right to buy that it destroyed an attempt by that authority to make special arrangements with tenants buying houses on that estate.
My Department closely monitored the right to buy progress in Sedgefield from November 1981 until December 1983, and we had two meetings with the authority. We were anxious to ensure that tenants received offer notices under section 10 of the Housing Act 1980 as soon as was practicable, and that tenants could in general exercise their right to buy effectively and expeditiously. At no time was it suggested that that should be achieved at the expense of neglecting the interests of tenants in houses that were known or suspected to be defective.
Sedgefield council brought to our attention in 1981 the problem of selling houses at Newton Aycliffe that were known to be defective. My Department advised that while there could be no question as to the tenant's right to buy where he met the conditions laid down in the Housing Act 1980, it was in both the landlord's and the tenant's interest that there should be full disclosure of any actual or potential defects that could affect the valuation of the property and the tenant's future liability for repairs. That is crucial to the debate on whether information was available. We advised that the basic principle should be that of full disclosure of information, particularly where the local authority was aware of a risk of structural defects that might not be revealed by a normal surveyor's survey.
As far as we are aware, Sedgefield council has advised tenants purchasing dwellings under the right to buy in Newton Aycliffe to have the properties surveyed. Some tenants may not, of course, have heeded that advice.
In widening the opportunities for home ownership, the Government have never underestimated the extra responsibility that new purchasers take on board. In general, it is for an individual purchaser to satisfy himself that the house he wishes to buy is in a good state of repair. That is why, in our right-to-buy booklet, we advise that individuals should have their houses surveyed before they take the final decision on whether to buy. We also make it clear that after purchase the individual owner-occupier will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of his or her property.
As well as the local authority giving advice about the condition of these dwellings, the building societies, solicitors and surveyors, where employed by purchasers, may also have been expected to give advice.
I understand that Sedgefield council called together representatives of those professions operating in Newton Aycliffe to advise them of the content of the Ove Arup report and its implications for the right to buy.
It would be difficult for the Government to take sides in this dispute between the local authority and owner-occupiers. It is essentially a local matter. If owners consider that the authority has been guilty of maladministration, they may refer the matter to the local ombudsman, and I believe that has already been done. They might also seek individual legal advice as to whether they have an action in the courts. Let us look forward and see what might be done to help them.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Housing Defects Act 1984 was introduced specifically to provide assistance to private owners of dwellings which had formerly been owned by the public sector and which had been found to

be defective. Assistance is available by means of a reinstatement grant, or in some cases by repurchase, for eligible owners of dwellings which have been designated for the purposes of the Act either by my right hon. Friend or by a local housing authority. The criteria for designation in both cases are that the dwellings are considered to be defective by reason of design or construction and that their value has been substantially reduced as a result of the defects becoming generally known.
Under the terms of the Act, my right hon. Friend, in making a designation, may not describe a class of dwelling by reference to the area in which the dwellings are situated. In other words, a designation by my right hon. Friend must apply to every dwelling of a particular class in the country as a whole.
The only dwellings that meet the criteria for designation nationally by my right hon. Friend are prefabricated reinforced concrete types designed before 1960, and my right hon. Friend has already designated those types under the Act, which came into force on 1 December 1984. I understand that the houses are of traditional design and construction built in the 1970s, not the 1960s, which is why they have not been designated.
Section 12 of the Act provides for a local housing authority to be able to designate dwellings within its area if it considers that they meet the criteria for designation locally.
Assistance to owners under the Act is exactly the same in respect of houses designated by a local housing authority as for houses designated nationally by my right hon. Friend. Although there is no provision for Exchequer contribution in respect of dwellings repurchased under a local designation, my right hon. Friend will contribute 90 per cent. of the cost of reinstatement grants under such a designation.
Assistance under the Act is intended for those who purchased from the public sector in good faith and in ignorance of the fact that their homes were inherently defective. I referred to the confusion surrounding the circumstances of the sale of the houses concerned, and as to whether or not the present owners were adequately informed about the problems associated with this type of roofing. It is for Sedgefield district council, however, to consider in the first instance whether it could be satisfied that the criteria for designation under the Act would be met with respect to these particular dwellings.
Local designations are subject to veto by my right hon. Friend and I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome of his consideration in any particular case.
The next port of call for the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly diligent in pursuing this case, is Sedgefield district council. If I may give him a little encouragement, I remind him that my right hon. Friend, in the House on 13 March, said that he was prepared to consider sympathetically applications from local authorities which have particular difficulty in meeting their statutory obligations under the Housing Defects Act. Further guidance to authorities on how to bid for additional resources is given in a circular issued today by my Department. That may offer some encouragement to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituents.
Turning to the offer to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Sedgefield council has offered to provide new pitched roofs for owner-occupiers on a rechargeable basis at a cost of about £3,000. I understand that that is £1,500 less than the owner-occupier would have to pay if he did


the work himself. Owners would not be charged for fees and supervision, and there are economies of scale to be achieved. It is for the individual owners to decide whether they wish to take up this offer. Of course, £3,000 is a lot to add to anyone's existing mortgage borrowing, but I think that owners will need to take into account whether the work will make their property more saleable and add to its value. Clearly, the more owners who take up the council's offer, the better, since that will improve the appearance of the estate, which would otherwise be blighted by the current dispute, and the estate would certainly look a little odd if it were left as a mixture of flat and pitched roofs.
I may not have been able to offer to the hon. Gentleman all the comfort that he wished, but it seems that there may be a way forward. As I said, my hon. Friend will be in the constituency again later in the summer, and he has made it clear that he would be happy to meet residents of the estate who handed him a petition when he visited it a few days ago.
I hope that the debate has not been totally without hope for those people with whose problems I very much sympathise, and that there may be a way through this rather tangled dispute.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Three o'clock.